Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Bedford Corporation Bill.

British Railways Bill.

Read a Second time and committed.

British Transport Docks Bill.

To be read a Second Time upon Thursday.

Customs Annuity and Benevolent Fund Bill.

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Isle of Wight River and Water Authority Bill.

London Transport Bill.

Mersey River Board Bill.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation Bill.

Read a Second time and committed.

Norfolk Estuary Bill.

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Port of London Bill.

Port of London (Extension of Seaward Limit) Bill.

Read a Second time and committed.

Preston Corporation Bill.

Saint George Hanover Square Burial Ground Bill.

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Shell Company of Australia Bill.

Shell Company of Egypt Bill.

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Tees Conservancy Bill.

Read a Second time and committed.

West Riding County Council (General Powers) Bill.

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITIES

Capital and Recurrent Grants

Mr. Boyden: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science if he will now announce the additional recurrent grants he is making to the University Grants Committee to enable the universities to carry out those recommendations of the Robbins Report which Her Majesty's Government have accepted.

The Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science (Mr. Quintin Hogg): I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 21st January.

Mr. Boyden: What is causing the delay? Has the University Grants Committee asked for a global sum yet? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman now pruning it, or is it merely the case that there are not enough clerks and adding machines in either the U.G.C. or the right hon. and learned Gentleman's office?

Mr. Hogg: Settlement of these matters must take into account the needs of thirty-seven separate universities and university institutions, which have to be consulted.

Benefactions

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science if, in implementing plans to expand higher education, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to encourage those universities and university promotion committees which are prepared to raise funds by their own efforts, so that the full cost does not fall on the taxpayer.

Mr. Hogg: The Robbins Report has stressed the continued desirability of benefactions to universities. I am sure this is right.

Mr. Smith: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but does he agree that any university would be ill-advised to interpret the Robbins


Report as a reason for abandoning any projects it might have for raising public funds?

Mr. Hogg: The Robbins Report expressly stressed the desirability of the flexibility and independence which private funds give universities.

Mr. Hannan: Is the Minister aware that I do not necessarily accept the sentiment expressed in the last words of the Question? Will he bear in mind, however, that the seven new universities in England and Wales have gone precisely to those places where the local authorities or promotion committees have been making such efforts? In this respect, will he bear in mind the efforts being made in East Stirlingshire for the provision of a new university in Scotland?

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that I shall bear in mind all relevant considerations.

Land

Mr. Boyden: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science, in view of the need for the rapid expansion of many universities, what steps he is taking to allow them to acquire land more speedily.

Mr. Hogg: Local authority powers of compulsory purchase may be used to acquire land for university purposes.

Mr. Boyden: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this answer is not good enough? Has he any objection in principle to the universities themselves being given the power to acquire land?

Mr. Hogg: There are arguments on both sides which I can hardly deploy at Question Time. Obviously, compulsory powers normally need to be used either by a Minister responsible to Parliament or by a democratically elected local authority.

Mr. Crossman: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the possibility of the reconstituted U.G.C. having one of its committees dealing with land purchase? Is not one of the essential factors having funds centrally available so that such purchases can be made in due course?

Mr. Hogg: I do not want to exclude any possibilities of this kind, and I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. But, as I have said, there are arguments on both sides, and the whole question of planning must be considered in the selection of sites.

Oxford and Cambridge Universities

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science if he will institute independent inquiries into the collegiate structure in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science what action he is taking on recommendation 146 of the Robbins Report which proposes independent inquiries into the anomalies at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge under certain circumstances; and what steps he will take to deal with the problem of higher emoluments for teaching staffs at Oxford and Cambridge, referred to in paragraph 542 of the Report.

Mr. Hogg: As the Robbins Report recognised, problems of internal re-organisation are being considered, and solutions sought, within the universities of Oxford and Cambridge themselves, and the Report did not recommend, nor, in my view, would it be proper for me to initiate, independent inquiries at this stage. The whole question of academic salaries is at present before the National Incomes Commission, and I do not propose to comment until its report is available and I have had the opportunity to consider it.

Mr. Stonehouse: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the Robbins Committee commented in paragraph 687 that continuance of this practice would endanger the whole system of higher education in this country? If Oxford and Cambridge are not prepared to act quickly, what steps does he intend to take?

Mr. Hogg: That is hypothetical.

Mr. Swingler: What is not hypothetical is whether the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Robbins Report said that Oxford and Cambridge should no longer have a privileged status


amongst universities and, in particular, should no longer continue to cream off talent by offering higher emoluments to the staff? Does he agree with that judgment? If he does, can we expect him to take some action based on that agreement?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that that arises out of the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Swingler.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought I heard the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) addressing me in the midst of that noise.

Mr. Swingler: I merely wish to point out—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is perfectly in order. He is addressing me and not the Lord President.

Mr. Swingler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to point out that the Minister said that my supplementary question did not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper. That, perhaps, is because it was the Question on the Order Paper that the right hon. and learned Gentleman declined to answer. Would you permit me to repeat my supplementary question, which was whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepts the recommendation of the Robbins Committee?

Mr. Speaker: The answer is, yes. I called the hon. Gentleman for a further supplementary question, which he has really already asked.

Mr. Hogg: The Question on the Order Paper asked if I would institute an independent—

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Robbins Report was published the Government said that they accepted it. That statement was given widespread publicity. Now, when they are asked to itemise it, they say that the question does not arise. Is it in order for Ministers to

exercise this device in order to avoid legitimate criticism in the House?

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) says does not give rise to a point of order. The position is that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has not had an answer to his supplementary question.

Mr. Hogg: The original Question was whether I would institute independent inquiries. I have answered it.

Mr. Crossman: The question we should like the Minister to answer is this. We are all aware that the Robbins Committee has not demanded an immediate inquiry but has said that unless the universities speedily remove these anomalies it wants an inquiry. Does the Minister accept the Robbins Report in that form?

Mr. Hogg: In that form, the question is hypothetical.

Mr. Crossman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is nothing hypothetical about asking whether the Government accept a particular recommendation of the Robbins Report in the precise wording of the Report? That was what I asked as a supplementary question to these two Questions.

Mr. Hogg: The Robbins Committee made a recommendation based on a certain hypothesis; that is what makes the hon. Gentleman's question hypothetical.

Mr. Crossman: The question is a perfectly direct one. Does the Minister accept the recommendation of the Robbins Report in the form in which the Robbins Committee published it or not? That is not a hypothetical question but a direct question about a paragraph in the Report.

Mr. Hogg: I will consider that situation if and when it arises.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Crossman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the House will help me. We shall not make any progress with so much noise.

Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's


reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as I can.

New Universities

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science whether Her Majesty's Government accept the recommendation of the Robbins Committee that six new universities should be established at once; and if he will state where they will be situated.

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science, when he will state his decision regarding the siting of the six new universities.

Mr. Hogg: The decision to establish a new university in Scotland has already been announced. The other recommendations of the Robbins Committee on this subject are, as stated in the White Paper (Cmnd. 2165), being considered by the University Grants Committee and the Government in the formulation of the 10-year programme of university expansion. The question of location for the Scottish university will now be considered by the University Grants Committee.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that the Robbins Committee recommended the establishment of these universities at once? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can make a decision about Scotland, why cannot he make a decision about England and Wales? He must realise that any delay will mean that these projects will be put back for very many years. Can we not expect a decision from him—or is all this more Tory pie in the sky?

Mr. Hogg: The Robbins Committee recognised, and recommended, that matters of this kind should be submitted, first, to the University Grants Committee. That is the situation. I think that the hon. Member is mistaken in his reading of the actual Report. I agree that the summary of recommendations gives the impression that the hon. Member indicates, but if he will turn up the relevant passage in the Report he will see that it is clear that the need could not be settled until inquiries to the existing universities about their potential have been made, and that

… initiative is needed in the next few years.
The last phrase is a quotation from the Report.

Mr. D. Jones: Will the Minister consider siting one of the new universities in North-East Lancashire or the West Riding? Question No. 6 is about land for universities, and in that connection I would direct the Minister's attention to the areas to which I am referring, where there is land—and in very attractive surroundings.

Mr. Hogg: I understand that there are at least 50 sites in respect of which there are applications pending in one form or another. They will all be considered, but in the first instance by the University Grants Committee.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that paragraph 476 of the Robbins Report reads:
We therefore recommend the formation of six new universities in addition to those now in process of formation … The steps needed to establish these universities should be begun at once"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the difficulty, but verbatim quotation is out of order in a supplementary question.

Mr. Stonehouse: Does the Minister accept in detail the recommendations in paragraph 476, or is he continuing to be evasive about the matter?

Mr. Hogg: I can tell the hon. Gentleman quite unevasively that the matter was referred to the University Grants Committee in accordance with the constitutional procedure.

Scotland

Mr. Bence: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science what plans he has for applying the Robbins proposals to Scotland.

Mr. Hogg: As announced in the course of the debate yesterday, the Government have approved the establishment of a new university in Scotland in addition to the new University of Strathclyde. The University Grants Committee and the other organisations concerned are taking all the other recommendations affecting Scotland fully into consideration.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Robbins Committee


expressed grave disquiet about the number of awards for post-graduate research coming out of public funds and about the number of students coming forward for post-graduate work? Will he see that extra public funds are immediately available for post-graduate awards in Scotland so that we may remedy the position about which the Robbins Committee expressed disquiet?

Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Member will study what I said last night, he will see that that has already been done.

Medical Students

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science if he will state the number of medical students whose application for university training was refused because of the shortage of places for the years 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963, respectively.

Mr. Hogg: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Wainwright: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House what the Government intend to do to increase the number of places in our medical training schools? Will he say how many women students there are at the moment and how many have been refused places in our universities?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member will have seen the announcement of 19th December of a new medical school. The ultimate number of places depends upon the requirements, which are not primarily a question for me.

Mr. K. Robinson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why this information is not available? Is it not only of public interest but vitally important to the Government for planning the National Health Service? Could he not perfectly easily get the information if he wanted it?

Mr. Hogg: No, I have tried to get the information and I have said that it is not available. One of the difficulties is the problem of multiple application.

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science if he will give the number

of medical students registered at universities for the years 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963, respectively.

Mr. Hogg: As the Answer contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wainwright: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what the Government intend to do to make certain that the numbers of general practitioners are increased? Is he satisfied that the present maximum figure of 3,500 patients per doctor is a correct one? Does he agree that it should be decreased to at least 2,500? Does he agree that the first Report, which the Government accepted with alacrity, was the Willink Report, which recommended a 10 per cent. reduction of places for medical students?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member will be aware that questions relating to the number of medical students are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Following is the table:
The numbers are, respectively:


October 1959
…
…
12,314


October 1960
…
…
12,276


October 1961
…
…
12,254


October 1962
…
…
12,550


October 1963
…
…
12,890

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENCE

Nuclear Tests

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science, in view of the facts that 10 out of 51 underground nuclear test explosions in the United States of America have led to radioactive clouds in the atmosphere and that a further 15 have led to limited leaks of radioactive elements, if he will make a statement on the dangers involved in underground tests.

Mr. Hogg: As regards events in the United States, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday. The facts are not as stated by the hon. Member and there is no danger in the United Kingdom from underground tests.

Mr. Allaun: But did not yesterday's statement admit that five explosions in


the year ending August 1962 had released radioactivity which was detected outside the test area, and that in the last fifteen months two other events at Nevada were also detected off site? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore ask the Prime Minister to respond to the announcement this morning that the Soviet Government are willing to add nuclear underground tests to the existing Test Ban Treaty?

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the whole House will wish to add a fourth dimensional test ban if the question of verification were satisfactorily negotiated. But I must still tell the hon. Gentleman that he is basing his questions upon facts which are not accepted by the bulk of responsible opinion in America.

British Scientists (Canada)

Mr. Pentland: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science how many British scientists, attending Canadian universities on fellowships, were persuaded to return to Britain after obtaining doctors' degrees by the selection board representing the British Civil Service, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board, in the years 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964.

Mr. Hogg: The total number of British scientists and engineers who returned from Canada as a result of the Board's activities were 13, 23, and 12 in 1961, 1962 and 1963, respectively. Of these the numbers with doctors' degrees obtained at Canadian universities are 2, 3 and 2, respectively. Figures for 1964 are not yet available.

Mr. Pentland: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, but is he satisfied with the numbers who are returning? Secondly, are we to understand that the Selection Board only interviews students in Canada and not scientists already working there? Thirdly, does we have the full co-operation of the Canadian Government on this method of approach?

Mr. Hogg: We want all suitable personnel we can get and we do not confine ourselves to the universities. Many of the people we interview are working in private firms. I should require notice of the hon. Member's final question.

Marine Nuclear Reactors

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister of Science which types of marine nuclear reactor are now being studied by the Atomic Energy Authority.

Mr. Hogg: The authority is continuing its collaborative development work on the Vulcain reactor with the Belgian Group, Belgonucleaire. In addition, they are continuing their own research on integral pressurised water reactors.

Mr. Digby: Does this mean that confidence in these two types of reactor possibilities has not diminished and that we shall not have to look to a third new type to achieve what we want in marine propulsion?

Mr. Hogg: It means that at the moment we are continuing with these and nothing else. I would not like to speculate about the future.

Ship Research Association

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science if he will state the scope and terms of reference of the British Ship Research Association; how its work is co-ordinated with the work of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; and when a detailed report on the activities of these two bodies will be publicly available.

Mr. Hogg: The Ship Research Association is an autonomous co-operative body, financially assisted by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, formed to promote research and scientific work relating to shipbuilding, marine engineering and the operation of ships. The work of the Association and related work in the Department is co-ordinated through advisory committees and joint projects. A report of the work of the Ship Division, National Physical Laboratory, is published annually in the Report of that Laboratory.
Some account of the work of the Association will appear in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research publication Research for Industry, 1963. The Association itself contributes regularly to the technical press.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that rather elaborate reply, but does he realise that the two bodies mentioned in my Question seem to be paying more attention to the southern seas—for instance, the Indian Ocean—rather than to the northern seas, where most British shipping Operates and most British fishing is done? Will he take steps to see that more attention is paid to the northern seas, particularly around Britain, with a view to helping our shipping and fishing?

Mr. Hogg: I apologise for the length of my Answer, but it was occasioned by the length of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question. As regards his supplementary question, I certainly am anxious that attention should be paid to the matters he mentions, but the Ship Research Association is, of course, concerned with ships rather than waters.

Development Contracts and Grants

Mr. Albu: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science how many development contracts and earmarked grants for research have now been placed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Mr. Hogg: Seven development contracts and one earmarked grant. I am informed that an eighth development contract is to be signed tomorrow.

Mr. Albu: Can the Minister say whether there has been any change in the establishment of the D.S.I.R.—which was rather recommended by the Trend Committee—for identifying projects and placing contracts?

Mr. Hogg: I should like notice of that question.

Smoking

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science what recent research studies into the psychological or other motivation of smoking are available to him; and why he considers it inappropriate for the. Medical Research Council to initiate such a study.

Mr. Hogg: Although it is a difficult field, much work has already been done. This is summarised in the recent reports

on smoking and health published by the Royal College of Physicians of London and the United States Public Health Service. I will arrange for the hon. Member to receive copies of these reports. I have never suggested, nor do I consider, the subject inappropriate for the Medical Research Council or medical research.

Mr. Robinson: Is it not clear from the signal failure of the Government's anti-smoking campaign that more work needs to be done? If the Medical Research Council is unenthusiastic—as it is apt to be about all projects in the psychological field—does not the Minister agree that there are other bodies whom he could approach to get this very valuable work done?

Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with the criticism of the Medical Research Council. I only say that projects of scientific research must be judged on their scientific merit.

Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the Medical Research Council to investigate this question: why is it that the doctors, who themselves know most about the relationship of smoking with lung cancer, are the heaviest smokers in the country?

Mr. Hogg: I think that the facts shown by the Report of the Royal College of Physicians show somewhat the opposite to be the case. It shows that there was a significant dropping off in smoking by registered medical practitioners.

Mr. Crossman: Would not the Minister agree that since vast sums of money are expended on studying the motivation of young people in order, by advertising, to induce them to smoke, it might be a good thing to spend some money similarly on a study of youth motivation in order to prevent them from smoking?

Mr. Hogg: It is certainly true that the evidence shows that the earlier one starts smoking the more difficult it is to give it up, but, of course, that does not invalidate what I said, which is that while any project for medical or scientific research will be carefully considered, it must be judged on its scientific merits.

Medical Research

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science to what extent the Medical Research Council limits its subjects for research to those for which he is certain that the questions investigated have adequate answers.

Mr. Hogg: None, Sir. It is not my policy to interfere in the decisions taken by the Council in matters calling for scientific judgment.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware of the distress his Answer of 21st January caused to many people who are keenly concerned about the growing problem of smoking and the motivation of young people? Does he recall that he then made a categorical statement that unless there was some possibility of adequate answers being found there was no point in pursuing this research? That is a wholly unscientific attitude for a Minister for Science to adopt. Is he influencing the Council on these lines? If so, should he not seek to change his position?

Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Member will look again at what I said, he will see that I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. Pavitt: I have it here.

Bronchopulmonary Diseases and Lung Cancer

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science how many research projects on bronchopulmonary diseases and lung cancer have been initiated by the Medical Research Council since 1957; how many have been completed; what is the total amount of funds allocated for these projects; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hogg: The Council has for many years supported a wide programme of research on these conditions. For the most part, this work is a continuing process, and since it is closely integrated with the Council's general research programme it is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the expenditure involved.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that in the publication Medical Research in Britain, published by the Government in

May 1963, two pages of projects are listed, but that this project does not appear there? If the Government are having a wide coverage, surely there should be some publicity put forward for this purpose. Is he further aware that bronchitis alone costs 31 million production days a year, as compared with only 5·7 million days lost in strikes? This is something about which we should have more than vague statements of general continuing responsibility, especially as in 1957 the Government announced as policy that they would try to prevent people from smoking.

Mr. Hogg: The point is that this is one of the main lines of research by the Medical Research Council. Eight of the Council's research units and one of its research groups are engaged, wholly or partly, on this research. The Council also has a major financial responsibility for the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and the Cancer Research Department of the Royal Beatson Memorial Hospital, Glasgow. Work related to this subject is also undertaken by a number of the Council's external scientific staff, and numerous projects are supported by the Council's research branch.

National Research Development Corporation and Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

Mr. Bence: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science if he will make a statement on the future of the National Research Development Corporation and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Mr. Marsh: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science if he will make a statement on the future of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Mr. Hogg: I would ask the hon. Members to await the outcome of the Government's consideration of the Trend Report.

Mr. Bence: In view of the splendid work done by the N.R.D.C. since its inception under the Labour Administration of 1945–51, will the right hon. Gentleman consider expanding its work so as to enable it to undertake, especially


in Scotland, some of the developments, and the extension of some of the work, done within its own research institution?

Mr. Hogg: Whatever may be thought of particular suggestions, the Trend Report favoured an extension of development work undertaken out of public funds.

Mr. Marsh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now over four months since the Trend Committee recommended the dissolution of D.S.I.R., and that this is causing a great deal of worry and anxiety among the employees there? This is a very important sector of Government research activity. If the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to make up his mind in four months, when is he likely to do so?

Mr. Hogg: If there is disquiet, it is nothing to that which was caused by the Leader of the Opposition, on 19th November, when he recommended not merely the dissolution but the dispersal of D.S.I.R.

Mr. Marsh: Is it possible to get a sensible answer from the right hon. Gentleman? We had more than half an hour's buffoonery last night. Can we have a sensible answer this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to repeat the words of my immediate predecessor. The hon. Member should not use the privilege of a supplementary question to make remarks of that kind.

Mr. Marsh: On a point of order. I do not wish to involve the Chair in this. I asked a serious supplementary question, and I hope that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that I did not receive a serious answer to it. If the Minister does not want to bother to answer a question he should have the courtesy to get up and say so. We should at least have an intelligent reply.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot spend any more time in this fashion.

Mr. Crossman: The House wants to know the answer to the question about the timing of the Government's decision on the Trend Report. Since the Minister agrees that there is deep dismay and alarm in D.S.I.R., can he give us some idea when the Government will make a statement on the Report?

Mr. Hogg: I cannot give a date for that. I did not make the agreement that the hon. Member thought. There is no reason for dismay, because, on the assumption that the Trend Committee's recommendations were followed out to the full, the work of D.S.I.R., with its personnel, would be expanded by the very process of its being divided into two.

Road Accidents

Dr. Bray: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science if he will instruct the Road Research Laboratory to publish the accident rates for different makes of car.

Mr. Hogg: No, Sir.

Dr. Bray: Is the noble Lord aware—[Laughter.] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from such evidence as the Road Research Laboratory has published it appears that the accident rate in one ordinary car exceeds that of another of the same size—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—by 65 per cent., and that the probability of this being due to chance is over 1,000 to 1 against? Is he further aware that certain cars are unnecessarily dangerous, and that by suppressing evidence on this important matter he is risking life and compromising the integrity and independence of Government science?

Mr. Hogg: The Report of the Road Research Laboratory says that
there was little difference between the rates for different makes of car of the same size, except that some makes of sports car had particularly high rates".
In view of the correspondence which has passed between the hon. Member and me, I have asked the Laboratory to comment upon the point that he is now making. It tells me that, in the absence of particulars for vehicle mileage, age, particular models and other factors, including type and the use to which different vehicles are put, it is the opinion of the Laboratory that figures for makes would be misleading. And it observed that the difference in accident rates for cars other than sports cars would be accounted for by statistical variations resulting from the small size of some of the samples and by variations in other factors, such as types of car and vehicle mileage.

Applied Research

Dr. Bray: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science whether he will now work out a national strategy of applied research to guide the allocation of public funds to research.

Mr. Hogg: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to Chapters III IV and V of the Report of the Zuckerman Committee on the Management and Control of Research and Development, and to paragraphs 103 to 107 of the Report of the Trend Committee, which suggest a somewhat different approach.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that the lack of sense of direction which he shows in his attitude to medical research is such as to cause dismay and confusion in the world of technology, and that the abject state of the country's aviation industry results directly from his lack of giving any sense of direction to industry as a whole on matters of technology?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his courteous supplementary question. It enables me to say that I thought his original Question was a particularly silly one.

Design Manuals and Data Sheets

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science whether he has yet received proposals on design manuals and data sheets for the professional institutions, as a result of the Feilden Committee Report on Engineering Design of July, 1963; and what action he is taking.

Mr. Hogg: The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is now studying a proposal from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers for a pilot scheme for producing design data sheets.

Mr. Dalyell: Referring to the Chief Secretary's Answer of 19th November last year, why so slow?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that it has been.

Scientific Committees (Reports)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science whether he will take steps to keep members of scientific committees reporting to him informed as

to what action has resulted from their reports until two years after such committees have signed their reports.

Mr. Hogg: The decisions taken on the recommendations of such scientific committees are normally made public.

Mr. Dalyell: Should not the busy men who serve on these committees be treated with elementary good manners, if possible?

Mr. Hogg: I have never known any member of a committee appointed by me to complain, and I do not believe that there is the smallest basis for the hon. Member's suggestion to the contrary.

Scientific Centre, London

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science if he will consider the establishment of a central London scientific centre for visiting academics from overseas and from other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hogg: I have, on more than one occasion, considered proposals of this kind. It is difficult to justify any large expenditure on the provision of special treatment for academic visitors as distinct from other visitors to London.

Mr. Carmichael: Would the Minister not agree that, with the increasing dependence we have on technology and science and the increasing transport backwards and forwards between other parts of the world and London and other parts of Britain and London, such a centre would be of tremendous value to academics, particularly in the scientific field, so that they could meet their colleagues from other places in London? Is he not aware that there is a tendency nowadays for people with much lower incomes to be in the scientific group and they do not have well-established clubs in which to meet their colleagues from abroad?

Mr. Hogg: I naturally appreciate the value of visiting scientists, but I think the House would also appreciate the value of visitors with other distinctions and qualifications.

Mr. Crossman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind


that in many other capitals academics have their academies or buildings in which they can meet? It is difficult when they come here, because when our scientists go abroad they get hospitality in almost every capital of the world where such buildings exist.

Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Member is referring to accommodation at the Royal Society. I think that problem is on the way to being solved.

Meat Research Institute

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science if he will make a statement about the progress of the research programme under the Director of the Meat Research Institute.

Mr. Hogg: Research on meat is proceeding, satisfactorily at the Low Temperature Research Station of the Agricultural Research Council. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the latest available Report.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that the quality of meat and improvement of its production is of the greatest importance to our farming industry, particularly in Aberdeenshire? What are the practical ways in which this Institute relates its scientific knowledge to areas of high quality beef production?

Mr. Hogg: I think the answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is, yes. I would require notice of any question relating to this particular research programme.

Marine Research

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science if he is aware of the need to strengthen the field of marine research by the formation of a marine sciences research council or a marine and freshwater sciences research council in order to give authority and encouragement at the organisational level to the unity which scientists are striving to achieve at the working level; and if he will take steps in the public interest to form such a council and give it the requisite powers.

Mr. Hogg: This proposal, which has only recently been put forward, will be considered in relation to the recommendations of the Slater and Trend Committees in the field of natural resources.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the proposal involves a very urgent question of principle for representatives of the fishing industry? Will he hurry up and see that, in the interests of British fisheries, the council asked for in my Question is constituted and put to work?

Mr. Hogg: Since the question of the constitution of a new research council is a matter of major significance in scientific policy, it cannot be regarded out of relation to the structure of other research councils.

Oral Answers to Questions — PLOWDEN COMMITTEE (REPORT)

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Report of the Plowden Committee.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I am not yet ready to make a statement on the Report of the Plowden Committee. As I told the House on the 16th of January, I will make one as soon as possible.

Mr. Wall: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the rationalisation and modernisation of our machinery for external relations is now well overdue? Will he undertake to make a statement at least before Easter? Is it his intention to publish the Plowden Committee's Report, or not?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I set up the Committee and I understand the urgency of the matter. I shall report to the House as soon as I can and the Report will be published.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT NKRUMAH (MESSAGE)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister what reply he received to his message to President Nkrumah congratulating him on his escape from assassination.

The Prime Minister: I have received a personal message from President


Nkrumah thanking me for the message I sent after the recent attempt on his life.

Mr. Donnelly: While I am sure that the House accepts the fact that it is perfectly permissible and understandable for the Prime Minister to congratulate any other Prime Minister who has escaped assassination, will the right hon. Gentleman answer two points? First, in the case of Ghana, is he aware that there are certain specific circumstances and the repression of black men by black men is no less repugnant than the repression of black men by white men? Will he make it perfectly clear that any congratulations he sent to President Nkrumah in no way implied the support of Her Majesty's Government for the policies of the Government of Ghana?

The Prime Minister: There are no circumstances I can think of which justify attempts at assassination.

Mr. John Hall: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has conveyed to President Nkrumah his congratulations on the part which the President played so nobly in attempting to arrest his would-be assassin?

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. KHRUSHCHEV (MESSAGE)

Mr. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made with the discussions with allied Governments on the proposals contained in the letter to him from Mr. Khrushchev, dated 31st December.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister what recent exchanges he has had with Mr. Khrushchev with a view to developing closer Anglo-Soviet relations and reducing the risks of war.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent or proposes sending to Mr. Khrushchev in response to his letter to him suggesting an international agreement to outlaw force as a means of settling international disputes.

The Prime Minister: Mr. Khrushchev sent me a message, dated 31st December, about the settlement of territorial disputes. My reply was delivered in Moscow on 24th January, and has since been published.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister, together with President Johnson, agreed with the proposals contained in this letter of Mr. Khrushchev, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the initiative for the next step rests with Mr. Khrushchev? Secondly, is it the view of the Government that any such agreement should cover the situation in Berlin and its access routes?

The Prime Minister: There are a number of Governments—Mr. Khrushchev addressed his proposals to all the Governments—which have not yet replied. I imagine that Mr. Khrushchev will want to wait until he gets those replies. It is certainly very important that any arrangement made should apply to Berlin and other particular situations of that kind.

Sir T. Moore: In view of any future exchanges which my right hon. Friend may have with Mr. Khrushchev, would he bear in mind the promises that Mr. Khrushchev has recently made and repeated to his own people about better houses, better clothing, better food and so on, which, of course, demand more people on building sites, in factories and on farms? Would he perhaps think it might be a useful thing to take Mr. Khrushchev at his word and so prepare the way for speedier and further negotiations?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am also trying to arrive at an arrangement with Mr. Khrushchev in this matter which will pledge us all to settle all our disputes by negotiation, but if the first question which is asked is "Does this apply to Berlin?" and the answer is "No", such an arrangement would be of little value.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Does the Prime Minister recognise that this letter from Mr. Khrushchev was in large part addressed to new nations in Africa and Asia and talked a great deal of good commonsense about their disputes? Will the right hon. Gentleman make every effort to secure this kind of agreement?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we will make every effort so long as the agreement when reached is real.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (BOOK)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Prime Minister whether he will move to establish an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, into the circumstances in which the contents of the State paper handed by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley, to Her Majesty the Queen on Friday 18th October, 1963, were divulged to Mr. Randolph Churchill.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There is no need for any Tribunal of Inquiry since I can tell the hon. Member now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) has not divulged what personal advice if any he tendered to the Queen.

Mr. Wigg: Is it not of the utmost importance, not only to the Government but to the House, that the facts of this matter should be established, for if the former Prime Minister was acting as a private hon. Member of this House, then, in fact, he was divulging information about the political opinions of hon. Members to the Sovereign? If the former Prime Minister was acting in the capacity of a former Prime Minister, or as a Privy Counsellor, is it not perfectly clear that he must have divulged information, which it was improper to divulge, otherwise the only conclusion to be drawn is that Mr. Randolph Churchill was not speaking the truth?

The Prime Minister: I do not mind what conclusions the hon. Member draws, but I know perfectly well that my right hon. Friend did not divulge any advice which he gave to the Queen.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the former Leader of the House has referred to this book as a trailer of the memoires of the former Prime Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman not persuade his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) to hurry up with the first instalment of his memoires before the General Election?

The Prime Minister: I dare say that the hon. Member will not have long to wait.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House how he knows, how he can be so certain, that no information was given to Mr. Randolph Churchill?

The Prime Minister: I would not come to the House to answer Questions from the hon. Member without having satisfied myself of the facts.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will move to refer to a tribunal of inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, recent disclosures to unofficial persons of Cabinet documents relating to the appointment to the office of Prime Minister in October 1963.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: As a result of the various points which have been put to him at Question Time, does not the Prime Minister think that there is genuine anxiety about the way in which these documents have been revealed, and will he think the matter over over the weekend and give us a more satisfactory answer?

The Prime Minister: There is no need for me to think it over during the weekend. I am not going to tell the hon. Gentleman or anyone else what documents are involved. It is perfectly clear, as I think it has always been to all parties, that Cabinet documents are not disclosed.

Mr. H. Wilson: In answer to a previous Question the right hon. Gentleman said quite emphatically that a certain document had not been disclosed. He said it with full authority and, obviously, was repudiating the claims which Mr. Randolph Churchill had been making on this matter. In answer to this Question, will the right hon. Gentleman say with similar authority that nothing was disclosed to Mr. Randolph Churchill; that is, on the point raised in this Question?

The Prime Minister: The Question asks about a document. I will not disclose to the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else whether or not there was a document. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] No one has ever disclosed what documents go into the Cabinet, come out of the Cabinet, or what documents exist.


I will certainly repeat what I said in answer to an earlier Question; that neither my right hon. Friend nor anyone else disclosed what advice was given to Her Majesty.

Mr. H. Wilson: Why is it that the Prime Minister in the first case is so categorical—and we welcome his giving the lie to Mr. Randolph Churchill in this way—while in the other case, on the other document, he is so coy about the last Question? Will he now tell us whether or not Mr. Randolph Churchill was given information on this second point?

The Prime Minister: Of course he was not, but I am not going to say, to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman's question, whether or not there was a document in existence.

Mr. Grimond: Is it clear from his replies, apart from the question of showing Mr. Churchill a document, that he was not told in any way what advice was tendered by the former Prime Minister to the Queen?

The Prime Minister: That is what I said in answer to an earlier Question, I thought quite plainly.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will request the Security Commission to investigate and report upon the circumstances in which the contents of the State paper handed by the then Prime Minister, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bromley, to Her Majesty the Queen on Friday, 18th October, 1963, were divulged to Mr. Randolph Churchill.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: Does the Prime Minister realise that he owes it to himself, the House and the country to clear up, if he can, the murky circumstances in which he emerged as Prime Minister? Or does he want to meet the wishes of his hon. Friends and go down in history as the Prime Minister of murk?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Sir S. McAdden: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the light of the proposals contained in the Buchanan

Report, he will appoint a Minister of Urban Development.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Many Departments are concerned with various aspects of the modernisation of our cities. It is neither desirable nor practicable to attempt to concentrate all these responsibilities under one Minister.

Sir S. McAdden: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that I fully bear in mind the number of Departments involved? Since this matter involves a new approach to the whole question, would it not be better to have someone to co-ordinate the work of the different sections of these Departments and do the job properly?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend is interested in co-ordinating machinery in the Government, we already have that, because we have a joint urban planning group which serves both the Departments and the Scottish Development Department. I think that these are matters which can be best talked about in debate. I have no hard and fast ideas on this subject, although I do not think that one regional department would make sense at present.

Mr. Thorpe: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that one of the difficulties in this matter has been that there are so many different Ministries involved? Is this not a case where there should be, apart from co-ordination, one central Ministry responsible for all these matters?

The Prime Minister: I have said "No Sir"—not as I see the thing at present. As I see it, this is not so much a matter of an inter-town question which my hon. Friend has raised but a problem of each town. I think that the co-ordinating machinery in the present circumstances is the best we can do, but I am always willing to think about new machinery if that is required.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to provide that in future the Prime Minister shall assume office only after being elected by the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) on 23rd January.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable body of public opinion in the country which thinks that there should be a different method of electing the Prime Minister and that there is an impression that he became Prime Minister as a result of getting the majority of spoiled votes? Does the right hon. Gentleman not also agree that this method lays too much of a burden on the Queen?

The Prime Minister: I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman might be a little worried about my election. I do not think that I can put right what happened in the past, but very soon I shall be re-elected by the whole nation.

Sir C. Osborne: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the Opposition are worried about his appointment because he has become such a good opponent?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not one of the duties of the Prime Minister of the day to rule on the reasons for alleged anxiety among the Opposition. Therefore, the question is out of order.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

JUDGES RULES

Mr. Fletcher: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department since the new Judges Rules announced by the Lord Chief Justice affect not only the admissibility of evidence, but also the conduct of the police in the interrogation of suspected persons, what consultations he has made with the Chief Constables' Association and with the Police Federation; and what directions he intends to issue with respect to the revised Rules.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): The new Rules are the responsibility of the judges and not of the Home Secretary; but I know that the views of chief officers

of police were available to the judges before the Rules were made.
As regards the second part of the Question, I have sent to chief officers administrative directions on interrogation and the taking of statements. The terms of these directions have been approved by the judges. Copies of the Rules and directions were made available to the House on Friday last.

Mr. Fletcher: While I recognise that the Rules relating to the admissibility of evidence are a matter for the judges, does not the Home Secretary regard it as unfortunate that the Police Federation and the Chief Constables' Association should have expressed their indignation that they were not consulted before the right hon. Gentleman issued his circular?
Secondly, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he can give us an assurance that he is satisfied that these revised and somewhat complicated new Rules, with their double caution, can be satisfactorily worked by the police and will not impair their efficiency in investigating and detecting crimes?

Mr. Brooke: I am sure that the Rules can be satisfactorily worked by the police, but I say again that they are not my responsibility.
The judges made it known at an early stage that they would take account of any representations made to them, and it was open to the Police Federation, and to all kinds of other bodies, to make representations if they wished to do so. I did not think that it was for me, in a matter of this kind, specifically to invite the Federation or other bodies to make representations.

Mr. John Hall: Is it not a fact that the Home Office circular did not come into the hands of the police until Saturday? As these Rules were meant to operate from Monday, was that sufficient time to give the police in view of the rather complicated nature of these changes?

Mr. Brooke: The date of promulgating them was a matter for the judges. I became aware late on Tuesday night of last week that the Rules were to be promulgated on Friday. Chief constables were warned in confidence in a circular that was issued to them on Wednesday.


The judges agreed that the Rules and directions ought to be ready in print in advance of promulgation by the Lord Chief Justice, and the Stationery Office, by a great effort, was able to supply sufficient copies to enable the Home Office to send to chief constables on Thursday night a copy for every police station in the country. Copies were also available on sale, as well as in the Vote Office here on Friday.

Mr. Paget: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that I, at any rate, have always been brought up to believe that it was for us to make laws and for the judges to interpret them? This appears to be an act of legislation by the judges. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us from where they get their authority to do this?

Mr. Brooke: This is not an act of legislation. This is an indication by the judges of what they will take into account when they are hearing evidence in court as to the admissibility of that evidence.

Mr. J. T. Price: While I have no wish to discuss the merits of the technical features of these amendments to the Rules, would not the Home Secretary agree that in view of the present crime wave, and of the dangerous elements that are now let loose on society, in increasing numbers, anything which hampers the police in making proper investigations to make arrests and to reduce crime will be regarded as a sorry outcome of academic considerations of the kind mentioned in these Rules?

Mr. Brooke: I am extremely anxious that anybody who commits a crime shall be brought to justice and convicted, but I am equally anxious that no evidence shall be obtained by oppressive measures, and that those who are not guilty shall be found not guilty.

Mr. Fletcher: Is it not a fact that the directions which the Home Secretary has given go far beyond anything which the Lord Chief Justice promulgated with regard to rules of evidence? May I ask the Home Secretary whether he consulted chief constables and the Police Federation about all the other administrative details in the circular which he issued?

Mr. Brooke: Naturally, I had the advice of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. I would not accept that the directions went far beyond the Rules. I think that they were a necessary accompaniment of the Rules. They were approved by the judges before I sent them out.

Mr. Ronald Bell: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he knows of any reason which made it necessary or desirable that these new Rules should be promulgated so shortly before they came into force on Monday?

Mr. Brooke: That was a matter for the judges. I expect that the judges thought it would be undesirable for the old Rules to continue in operation for any appreciable time after the new Rules had been promulgated.

R.A.F. OFFICER, VIETNAM (DEATH)

Mr. Warbey: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the participation of a serving officer of the Royal Air Force in military operations against armed forces in rebellion against the Government of South Vietnam without a specific request from that Government for military assistance.
I think that the matter is obviously definite, Sir, but I have to establish that I have raised it at the earliest opportunity, and that it is urgent.
This tragic incident arose, I believe, on or about last Friday week, and was reported in the Observer of last Sunday week. It was stated that the Americans and South Vietnamese armed forces had engaged in massive helicopter raids against rebel positions in South Vietnam, and that during the course of those operations some of the helicopters had been brought down. One had fallen into the sea, and amongst those who had been drowned there were two American officers and a wing commander of the Royal Air Force.
As that message came from one correspondent in Bangkok, I had, first, to try to ascertain whether the facts were substantially true. I eventually obtained


other agency messages which confirmed that, and on the basis of those messages I tabled Questions to the Secretary of Stale for Foreign Affairs and to the Secretary of State for Air which were answered yesterday in writing, and were, therefore, available to hon. Members only last night or this morning in HANSARD.
There is still a dispute about the facts which concern the important question of responsibility. The agency message which I quoted in my Question to the Foreign Secretary said that this wing commander was visiting Vietnam in a private capacity as a guest of the United States Army and. Vietnamese armed forces, and was flying in a helicopter as a technical observer in operations against the guerrillas. That is said to be the statement given to the Press in Saigon by the British Embassy there, but in his Answer to me yesterday the Foreign Secretary left out the words "in a private capacity" and simply said:
In reply to a telephone Press inquiry, Her Majesty's Embassy said orally that the wing commander was watching operations as a guest of the United States Army and Vietnamese armed forces."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1964; Vol. 688, c. 10.]
It appears from this reply that the Government have withdrawn the original suggestion—which would have been very damaging to the memory of the wing commander and to his next of kin—that he was acting purely in a private capacity—in other words, that he was engaged in an irresponsible prank in deserting his duty. This was the implication of the statement made by the British Embassy that he was acting in a private capacity. This is what I am establishing. Now that this has apparently been withdrawn, it appears that Her Majesty's Government accept responsibility for the wing commander's actions.
The wing commander was taking part in operations in an armed helicopter engaged in military operations and in a country where we are not a belligerent. This therefore raises questions of the highest public importance, because it is perfectly clear that an incident of this character, for which the British Government accept responsibility, might result in the situation in which we were treated as a co-belligerent by the other side in South-East Asia and eventually, possibly, challenged—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member will bear in mind that he cannot now make the speech which he would make were his application to succeed, otherwise we should open the door wide to possible abuse.

Mr. Warbey: I appreciate your intervention, Mr. Speaker, and I will abide by it immediately. Because of the circumstances of the case I thought it necessary, first, to establish the facts; secondly, this is the earliest opportunity on which I could have raised the matter; and, thirdly, I submit that it is both urgent and of public importance. Now that I think that I have shown that, I submit myself to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the participation of a serving officer of the Royal Air Force in military operations against armed forces in rebellion against the Government of South Vietnam without a specific request from that Government for military assistance.
I cannot accede to the hon. Member's request. He raised the matter himself last Thursday and that fact deprives it of sufficient urgency to permit it to come within the Standing Order.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE) (SCOTLAND)

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities in Scotland to develop, and assist in the development of, land; to empower such authorities to set up certain capital funds and renewal and repair funds, to borrow by means of bonds and to allow discount for early payment of rates; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
The Bill which I seek leave to introduce is not likely to spark off a great national controversy. It is not an exciting Bill. On the contrary, I should describe it as rather dull. However, I believe that it is potentially very useful and would deal with various odds and ends of local government in Scotland.
We in Scotland are not always engrossed in our own affairs. Sometimes we look over our shoulders to see what is happening south of the Border. If what we see is good, sometimes we take steps to copy it. That is what has given rise to the proposal to introduce this Bill. We in Scotland have found from time to time various good ideas have been adopted in England which seem to us to meet the present-day needs and problems.
First, I should like to apply to Scotland certain provisions in a Private Member's Bill introduced 10 years ago by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). It was commended by the Government of the day and was passed with universal approval. In moving the Second Reading of his Bill, the hon. and learned Member said that it had a formidable title and was a little dull, but, on the other hand, in a very happy speech he said that he would have preferred the title of his Bill to be "A paradise of dainty devices". He said that that was the name of an Elizabethan song book
composed principally by sundry learned gentlemen of honour and worship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 1697.]
My proposed Bill has a similar origin, and, like the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, I pay tribute to many gentlemen "of honour and worship" in municipal and county circles in Scot-

land who have encouraged and assisted me in preparing it.
The first set of proposals in the hon. and learned Member's Bill which I should like to see applied to Scotland would assist local authorities in good housekeeping. Scottish local authorities at present have no general powers to make reserve funds of their savings on capital and revenue account. My proposed Bill attempts to rectify that omission and to bring Scottish authorities into line with local authorities in England. It would keep their savings from rating account and the proceeds from such transactions as the sale of property separate from the other funds and would enable them to form the sort of nest eggs beloved of all good housekeepers. That would be a very great convenience to local authorities in Scotland.
For a peculiarly technical reason, local authorities in Scotland have always levied their rates six months in arrear. This causes a good deal of inconvenience to the local authorities which often have to borrow from the bank for the intervening period. It is also inconvenient to the ratepayers who often have to lay aside the money for an uncomfortably lengthy time in order to meet the rates when the demand comes in.
In the City of Edinburgh, under a private statute, the English law has been followed. There has been great success with a scheme under which a discount of 3d in the £ is given to people who are prepared to pay their rates at the beginning of the financial year. In the opinion of local authorities in Scotland, that would be universally acceptable not only to the local authorities but to the large body of ratepayers. I should, therefore, like such a provision to apply throughout Scotland.
Smaller local authorities in Scotland—and by that I mean local authorities which are not planning authorities—frequently have great difficulty in acquiring property within their areas which does not form part of an undertaking. The property concerned is very often derelict property, and it may be to the very great advantage of the community if the local authority is able to acquire and develop that land and to give assistance to developers to develop the land on their behalf.
Provision for this was introduced about a year ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson). I have copied, as far as possible, the provisions introduced by him in his Private Member's Bill. I do not propose to give local authorities in Scotland any further compulsory powers. I am asking for leave to introduce a Bill which will increase, their power to acquire land and to do things by agreement.
These provisions are wanted by local authorities in Scotland and I feel that their task will be made very much easier if they are given these discretionary powers. They will, to some extent, place local authorities in Scotland in a position of parity with local authorities in England and will be of general advantage. On these grounds, I ask the House to agree to my Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Forbes Hendry, Mr. John Brewis, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. John Henderson, and Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE) (SCOTLAND)

Bill to enable local authorities in Scotland to develop, and assist in the development of, land; to empower such authorities to set up certain capital funds and renewal and repair funds, to borrow by means of bonds and to allow discount for early payment of rates; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 7th February and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

Orders of the Day — CONTINENTAL SHELF BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.50 p.m.

The Minister of Power (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill comes before the House primarily because of the exciting possibility that oil and natural gas may be found under the North Sea. Not very long ago, such a development would have seemed most improbable. But the search for new sources of energy the world over is unremitting, and in recent years it has brought about remarkable advances in oil technology, particularly in drilling in submarine areas. Today, more than 20 oil companies of international reputation are concerned in surveys of the North Sea, which are costing substantial sums of money.
More important, we know that many of these companies are interested to go further and secure as soon as possible the right to begin drilling. Surveys, however promising, can do no more than indicate the existence of geological structures that might contain oil or natural gas; only drilling can determine whether oil or natural gas is actually present. But drilling, particularly under the sea, is a very expensive proposition. It may cost hundreds of thousands of pounds for just one hole, and the experience of oil companies in many parts of the world shows how often holes are drilled and found to be dry. At this point the companies have very reasonably turned to the Government and asked that their operations and investments shall have the protection of a proper system of law. This is something which only Parliament can provide.
Fortunately, the basis already exists in international law for setting up the necessary legal framework. There was a conference on the Law of the Sea in Geneva in 1958, and this resulted in the signing by this country and others of four conventions. Two of these conventions, the Continental Shelf Convention and the High Seas Convention, concern the Bill. Of these two the Continental Shelf Convention is much the more important for our present purposes and for the moment I will concentrate on that. The


Continental Shelf is usually understood as being bounded by the line where the water is 200 metres deep. The definition in the Continental Shelf Convention goes further and includes the seabed under deeper water provided its natural resources can be developed. I shall use the term "Continental Shelf" in this wider sense.
Broadly speaking, the Convention deals with the division of the shelf between neighbouring States, and with the sovereign rights of each State to explore its part of the shelf and to exploit the natural resources there. If the Bill is passed, the Government will of course ratify the Continental Shelf Convention. Twenty-one States have already ratified it, and only one more ratification is needed to bring it into force.
As regards the North Sea, which is the main area of interest to us at present, the result will be that this country will have rights over any resources up to a line half-way across to Holland, Belgium and the other coastal States, subject to any adjustments which may be agreed with those countries. This is an area comparable in size with the United Kingdom itself, and the areas which may fall to us in other directions could be larger still. Such an extension of our national interest is clearly of prime importance, but before asserting our rights and assuming our obligations in international law, the law of this country needs to be adapted to the new developments. That is the main purpose of the Bill.
At this point I ask the House to consider what the results might be of finding oil or natural gas on that part of the Continental Shelf which will thus fall to the United Kingdom. We all know that modern economic development must have secure and abundant supplies of energy at competitive prices. This country led the Industrial Revolution because at that time we had such energy in the form of coal readily available. But, more recently, we have not been so fortunate. Oil and natural gas have been found in vast quantities elsewhere in the world and have become the basis for industrial developments which are entirely dependent on them.
Our own country, despite methodical searches, has so far yielded very little

of these riches. Our present indigenous production provides no more than one five-hundredth of the oil we need, and our natural gas production is insignificant. We cannot do without petroleum, as we all realise, and we have to import ever increasing quantities from the Middle East and elsewhere. Britain's oil bill thus becomes bigger each year. In 1963, retained oil imports were valued at about £440 million, which represents over 9 per cent. of all our imports.
In these circumstances, I am sure that the House will feel, as I do, that if oil or natural gas could be found in quantity close at hand, and under our own control, it would be a matter of great good fortune. A substantial supply of indigenous natural gas would be something new for our economy, but experience in the United States and elsewhere has shown how valuable it could be for fuel and other industrial purposes.
I must, however, sound a note of warning. No oil or gas has yet been found. As I have pointed out, none can be positively located until drilling has taken place. This is the next stage after the geological surveys which are now being evaluated. We must guard against being too sanguine, but there is no reason why we should not allow ourselves to hope for success. But if we fail to legislate and that is the duty of Parliament we shall be standing in the way of the initiative and enterprise being shown.
I have said much about oil and natural gas, but I must also mention coal and other minerals. There are possibilities of finding these in useful quantities, and the National Coal Board is already concerned in developments in the North Sea.
Where possible, we are applying existing statutes, particularly the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934, amending them where necessary. Rather more elaborate provisions are needed to deal with all the incidental matters which may arise when activities of great technical complexity and commercial importance take place far out at sea. Much of the Bill is, therefore, concerned with what might be described as provision for law and order, and the interests of many Government Departments are concerned.
I now turn to Clause 1, which Clause deals directly with the oil and other natural resources that I have been talking about. I should like hon. Members to have a clear understanding of the legal position. It is rather complicated and I want to get it right. I must emphasise that the United Kingdom's rights in this matter do not amount to full sovereignty. The sea areas concerned are not added to the United Kingdom. If they were, we might not need the Bill at all, since our existing laws would automatically apply to our part of the Shelf, and they might well be enough. International law, however, preserves the legal status of the waters above the Shelf as high seas and the legal status of the air space above those waters. The United Kingdom's rights under the Continental Shelf Convention are, in fact, defined as sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring the Shelf and exploiting its natural resources.
The rights in international law, do, however, accrue to the United Kingdom as a state, and it seems to the Government proper to begin the Bill by putting it beyond doubt that these rights are vested in the Crown, or, in the case of coal, in the National Coal Board as the appropriate public body. This is done in subsections (1) and (2). We must also determine conclusively, for the purposes of our national law, which, I believe the international lawyers call municipal law, the areas within which the rights are exercisable, and to which most of the provisions of the Bill will apply. Under subsection (5) this is to be done by Order in Council, and the areas concerned are referred to as designated areas. I hope that the House will bear this term in mind, as it will occur frequently in our further consideration of the Bill.
The Convention provides a basis on which neighbouring States will seek agreement with each other over common boundaries on the shelf. We must expect that much detailed work will have to be done and that negotiations with our neighbours will take time. The Government will, therefore, seek to begin these negotiations at an early date, regardless of whether the other country concerned has or has not signed or ratified the Convention. Meanwhile, the position in international law is clear

enough for us to identify large areas of the shelf which undoubtedly appertain to the United Kingdom, and these we shall designate as soon as may be after the Bill becomes law.
We intend that the rights in respect of petroleum shall be exercised under licence from the Minister of Power, and not by the Crown direct. The Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934, governs similar operations on the land and within territorial waters, and appropriate sections of that Act are extended to the designated areas by subsection (3) of the Clause. The Minister of Power will thereby have power to make regulations and grant licences to prospective developers, and these licences will govern the way in which operations are conducted.
A system of control and inspection is well established under the 1934 Act. But it will need adaptation to the special circumstances of submarine work on the shelf, and I should not like the House to suppose that the present regulations under that Act will necessarily provide a suitable pattern. In any case, I am glad to reassure the House that the regulations are required to be laid before Parliament and will be subject to negative Resolution of either House.
I particularly welcome the initiative of the Institute of Petroleum in undertaking a revision of its code of safe practice to take account of the expected developments on the Continental Shelf, and I intend to make compliance with the code a condition of the licences to be issued.
Subsection (2) of this Clause, dealing with coal, follows the precedent of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946. The Board's operations in the designated areas are to be subject to the Minister of Power's consent.
The next important provision is in Clause 3 and concerns the extension of criminal and civil law to the United Kingdom part of the Shelf. The effect of subsection (1) is to give the protection of the criminal law of each part of the United Kingdom to people working on installations and in the waters within 500 yards of them. As hon. Members probably realise, these installations are often large and many men


will live and work on them for several days at a time.
The criminal offences mainly aimed at are offences against the person or against property. But the subsection is not confined to such offences. It has been drawn in such a way as to export, if I may use such a term in relation to the law, those parts of our Statute Book which are exportable.
I should like to mention in this context, very briefly, the provisions of Clause 9. These deal with the prosecution of persons who have committed offences on the Shelf and, among other things, extend the powers and privileges of constables to the installations.
As to the civil law, subsection (2) provides for its extension to the whole of the designated areas. An Order in Council made under this subsection will also confer jurisdiction on courts in a specified part of the United Kingdom. I should emphasise here that it is the Government's intention to make such Orders in Council to cover the whole of the designated areas as soon as these have been designated under Clause 1(5), and certainly before any licences are issued for such areas. This will ensure—and I think that this is important—that there will be legal protection available before operations actually begin in these areas.
Clauses 2 and 4 enable the Ministers of Power and Transport to provide for the safety of shipping and installations. In administering these provisions we intend to have the fullest regard to the interests of the fishing industry, and to ensure that there is proper and timely consultation so that all these activities can be conducted so as to interfere as little as possible with one another. Shipping will be kept fully informed by means of notices to mariners issued by the Admiralty.
Clause 6 is the concern of the Postmaster-General, and Clause 8 deals with the status of men employed on installations in regard to National Insurance. The remaining Clauses, 5 and 7, give effect to the obligations we undertook when we ratified the High Seas Convention.
Clause 5 deals with the discharge of oil from pipelines and installations. Some apprehension was expressed, when

the Bill was discussed in another place, about the possibility of serious pollution of the sea arising from what are known as blow-outs, and it may help hon. Members if I say a word or two about this. In modern oilfield practice, escapes of oil are uncommon and elaborate precautions are taken against them, involving, among other things, the use of what are known as blow-out preventers. I am confident that the operators who will, we hope, soon be engaged in drilling activities on our part of the Shelf, will have taken note of the views already expressed in another place and will do all in their power to prevent any pollution arising.
I want to be realistic. It would be foolish to ignore the fact that these operators will be dealing with natural forces, under the sea, sometimes involving great pressures. There can be no absolute certainty, despite the taking of all possible precautions, that no pollution will be caused. It is in recognition of this that the Clause provides for a person charged with an offence to plead that he acted with reasonable care and took prompt and reasonable action to stop or reduce the escape.
Clause 7 extends the protection of the Submarine Telegraph Act of 1885 to all submarine cables and pipelines. It deals, among other things, with compensation for the sacrifice of anchors, nets and other fishing gear to avoid injuring cables and pipelines.
The main purpose of the Bill, in despite of the many incidental provisions, is to enable the natural resources of the Continental Shelf to be exploited for the benefit of all concerned. I hope that the House will agree that this is highly desirable and urgent, and give the Bill its Second Reading.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward the Bill, because we on this side of the House appreciate its urgency. I think that we might well have had it a little earlier. The Convention was signed in 1958, and the prospecting companies for oil and natural gas have been busy these last two years and more. It is understandable that they could not put down a drill at all until an authority was created to grant a concession to


proceed with their rather expensive operations. However, now that the Bill is here, we welcome it.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, also, on having introduced a Bill which so extends public ownership without, so far, a murmur of protest from any corner of the House. I should be interested to know whether any hon. Member opposite intends to protest at the Minister's efforts as one of the great nationalisers.
In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was bringing into public ownership the resources of an area of the sea bed and the subsoil only a part of which was equal to the size of the United Kingdom. This is about 90,000 square miles of resources which are being nationalised and brought into public ownership, yet the Minister hardly paused to mention this aspect of the matter. Apparently, he does not expect the difficulty which one of his predecessors had when he only wanted to nationalise the production and distribution of town gas in this country.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Very specious.

Mr. Fraser: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) is now joining the nationalisers.
The resources of the Continental Shelf, particularly under the North Sea, in which the Minister is now interested are oil and natural gas. We on this side are most anxious that, if resources of oil or natural gas can be found under the North Sea or anywhere else on our Continental Shelf, they should be exploited to the full in the interests of the nation. Because we are so concerned about the exploitation of all the natural resources at our command, we have for a long time been urging the Minister and his predecessors to work out a fuel policy for the whole country. This is why we have from time to time been anxious to ensure that we were making the best use of our main indigenous resource, our coal.
In the past, when we have urged this upon Ministers, they have always rejected our argument that the import of large quantities of oil placed a strain upon our balance of payments. Today, on the other hand, the Minister called attention to the great advantages we might derive from the discovery of oil

and natural gas under the North Sea, and he told us that, last year, if I heard him aright, retained oil imports—I emphasise the word "retained"—were valued at over £440 million, representing, he said, over 9 per cent. of all our imports. I am delighted that the Minister recognises that the nation, with all the difficulties we have in paying our way on the world, would derive great advantage from reducing its dependence on imports of oil.
Thinking as we do, we wish the prospecting companies good luck in the searches which they are now making and will proceed to make, at very great expense to themselves, when the Bill becomes law. The Bill, however, vests in Her Majesty all the natural resources of the sea bed and the subsoil, and, as one will appreciate from a reading of the Convention, the possibilities there are incalculable, not being limited to oil and natural gas. Oil, gas and coal are the three with which we are principally concerned now, but I believe that the possibilities in discovering worth-while resources in the sea bed and subsoil are beyond calculation at present.
I am a little surprised to find that oil and natural gas are both to be subject to the same licensing procedure and conditions, that is, the provisions of Sections 2, 4 and 6—and, to some extent, Section 5—of the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934. Section 4 provides:
It shall be lawful for any person holding a licence under this Act, if so authorised by the Board of Trade, to supply to any premises natural gas gotten by him in pursuance of the licence:
Provided that where the premises to be supplied with the gas are situated within the authorised limits of supply of any undertakers within the meaning of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, the Board of Trade shall not give their authority unless they are satisfied that those undertakers have been given an opportunity of purchasing the gas at a reasonable price and that the gas is to be supplied to those premises for industrial purposes only.
I think it a little odd that we should be asked to apply that Section of the 1934 Act, bringing in, as it does, the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, and completely ignore the passage of the Gas Act, 1948. I realise that the Gas Act supersedes many of these previous enactments, but this seems all the more reason to


recognise the difference which exists at present between oil and natural gas. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Willesden, East never manages to listen to anything at all without constant interruption. If he would listen, he would appreciate that oil industry is in private ownership and that the gas industry is run by the Gas Council and the area boards.
I am sure that the Minister has not in mind allowing a company which gets a licence under the Bill, if it is successful in locating natural gas under the North Sea, to capture the gas and bring it to this country by pipeline and then sell it in competition with the Gas Council and the area boards. Of course, he has no such thought in mind, and, indeed, I think that the Gas Act, 1948, would make it impossible or illegal for any company to do so. But this ought to have been recognised in the body of the Bill, and I suggest that an Amendment may well be desirable so that the law and the intention of the Government, as it must be, may be made a little clearer than they would be from a reading of this Bill and the appropriate Sections of the other statutes referred to.
For both oil and natural gas, licensing and regulation are clearly essential for ordinary search and development. Could the Minister tell us whether he expects the possibility of having to select between or among competitors for permission to search in any one areas? If he has to adjudicate, can he tell us how he will select the competitor to whom he will grant a licence? I am wondering particularly whether he will have in mind to give preference to British companies against companies registered in foreign countries.
May we be told whether a licence to search will include a licence to exploit? I should have thought—I do not think that the point is made clear from reading the Bill—that there should be separate licences. This would enable conditions to be attached to a licence to exploit which might be unnecessary or superfluous in the case of a licence only to search. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what the Government have in mind about that.
I assume that licences to exploit would contain permission and authorisations

regarding pipelines and shore installations. It seems hardly credible that a licence to exploit would be granted without, at the same time, providing the other authorisations. The licences to exploit would relate to the designated area on the Continental Shelf beyond the territorial waters. There would not be much use getting a licence to capture gas and recover it in an area beyond that point unless certain conditions and authorisations existed regarding the laying of pipelines and the construction and erection of the necessary shore installations. That would appear obvious. But I think that we should be given some assurance. This would seem to make clear that the licence to search and the licence to exploit are two different things.
The Minister called attention to Clause 2, which relates to the designated area for the protection of installations. One would read this Clause together with the Convention. The area to be protected will extend to 500 metres round the installations as the Convention provides. Clause 3 deals with the application of the criminal and civil law. The area to which the law of the coastal parts of the United Kingdom will apply is to be one of 500 yards round the installation. It seems odd that we should draw a circle round the installations with a radius of 500 metres and describe that as the protected area into which vessels may not enter without the approval of the Minister, and that then we should draw a slightly narrower circle within which the criminal and civil laws will apply.
There does not seem much point in having a narrow no-man's-land between the area in which the law applies and the area which is protected under the provisions of Clause 2. In any case, as we use the metric system for determining what is the Continental Shelf and for the protected area there would seem no point in departing from that system in Clause 3. In some cases we may be dealing with people who are not British nationals and it would make sense to use the metric system in Clause 3, also, and refer to 500 metres.
There would appear to be omitted from the Bill any power to make regulations concerning the safety, health and welfare of the workers employed on the installations. The Minister said that the


Institute of Petroleum had drawn up a code of practice. I have not seen it, and I do not know whether it is concerned with the way in which the installations are constructed and may later be operated, or whether it extends to cover the safety, health and welfare regulations applicable to the workers. I think that very likely it would relate only to the first and not both.
It would seem that the general powers of the Minister are inadequate to provide proper safeguards for those occupied in the construction or the operation of the installations. The Convention makes clear that these installations are not islands and have no territorial waters of their own. The persons operating them would be subject to the same civil and criminal law as on the mainland. I should have thought that that would include the safety, health and welfare of the workers and that these provisions would apply as in the case of an island. I think that the Minister would do well to arm himself by means of a further Clause with regulation-making powers of the kind we should all want him to possess in order to protect the lives of those engaged in what may, I think, be described as a more than usually hazardous occupation.
Subject to the comments which, as the Minister will appreciate, are all intended to be constructive, we on this side of the House extend a warm welcome to the Bill. We look forward to an interesting Committee stage. This Bill deals with what is constitutional law and perhaps it would be as well that we should discuss it in Committee on the Floor of the House rather than in a Standing Committee. I should like the Minister to tell us what he has in mind. In any case, soon after his reply we shall find out what are the Government's intentions, because if the Committee stage is to be taken on the Floor of the House a Motion must be put forward straight away. I regret that I have not had the opportunity to put this point privately to the Minister. But he should find it easy to decide, with the consent of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, to discuss the Bill on the Floor of the House.
I should like to join with the Minister in expressing the hope that once the Bill has become law, and licences have been granted, those who take them may, when

they engage in their risky operations and involve themselves in heavy expenditure in the search for oil and natural gas, be successful in their efforts, because to the extent that they are it will be of great benefit to this country.

4.29 p.m.

Colonel C. G. Lancaster: When I first read the Bill and the debate on it in another place, as when listening to my right hon. Friend the Minister developing its purpose, I was not under any impression that this was a contentious Measure. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) rather ingeniously injected a slight political slant to it, but the words with which he finished his speech made me feel that his heart was as much in this Measure as is that of everybody else who is here today to discuss it.
As my right hon. Friend said, the purpose of the Bill is to enable our legislation to be brought into line with that of other nations so that the Convention on the High Seas can be ratified at the earliest moment. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Hamilton in his view that ratification has been somewhat delayed, but we now have the Bill before us and it is to be hoped that we will add no further delays to it.
This is a matter of considerable importance. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, we do not yet know whether there is either oil or natural gas on the Continental Shelf, but it is to be assumed that all the oil companies which concern themselves in this matter have a fairly shrewd suspicion that these resources may well be there. I have a feeling that some of their seismic explorations may have given them ground for believing that there is a real chance of their finding either natural gas or oil. Certainly, if we were to find natural gas in comparable quantities to what has recently been found in Holland, in particular, it would have a massive effect on the country's economy. It is to be hoped that success will attend these efforts.
I decided to try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I have a little experience, mostly vicarious, of what has been happening in offshore boring since 1955. As has been mentioned, the National Coal Board has been


boring for coal, and I have been associated with the undertaking which has been doing the work first, in the Firth of Forth and recently off the coast of Durham. This work has been highly successful. Coal in considerable quantities has been found right down the coast as well as in the Forth, and a great deal of knowledge and experience of the effect of sea and weather at fair distances from the shore—the rig is at present working over 4½ miles offshore—has been gained which may be of considerable value to the oil companies if they find either oil or natural gas and proceed to bore for it.
We also have extended experience, to which the hon. Member for Hamilton referred, of the safety, health and welfare of men working on the towers, because the work has been going on for some time. The existing regulations have worked very satisfactorily. It may be necessary under the Bill to make additional provision, but in eight or nine years' work in all weathers, with a fair number of men working on the rigs for fairly long periods, often for as long as three weeks before coming back ashore, the regulations have worked well. Fortunately, the question of crime has never arisen, so the provisions as affecting the crime code have not yet needed to be brought into use.
Obviously, this is a big and important experiment. Whether or not natural gas is found on our side of the Shelf or on the other side, we do not yet know, but I join the hon. Member for Hamilton in hoping very much that British oil companies will be given their fair crack of the whip in the designation of the areas. I would hope very much that it would be a British company which was fortunate enough to find these natural resources and I assume that when allocating the right to work in the designated areas my right hon. Friend the Minister itends to bear the British oil companies very much in mind.
Having said that, I have nothing more to add other than to join my voice in hoping that this great experiment will prove to be successful.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) was fearful lest

British companies who have undertaken this admirable work under the seas should not have their fair share of the rewards, but he need not worry very much. This whole matter is likely to be in the hands of the British Government, who are not likely to give away favours to foreigners. I am entirely with the hon. and gallant Member in thinking that those who have done great work and run great risks to explore and find out whether there is additional wealth should have their rewards.
I very much regret, however, that this question should ever arise. It is a sad thing that in this century, national Governments should be discussing the wealth of the world. Judging by what they say—indeed, the Minister today had no other thought in mind—their main interest is to see how much they can grab for their own nation. I do not blame the Minister any more than any other statesman throughout the world, but what a tragedy it is that this relic of the past, this offshoot of the national State, should be with us today when the very objects for which the national State was formed are manifestly incapable of being handed over to those who support the national State. It is a tragedy that something better and wider, something more on a world scale, could not have been thought up to deal with this situation.
I give the Bill the same cautious welcome as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) gave it. Caution is necessary, not so much because of what is in the Bill as because of what is not in it, and also because of doubts about the efficacy of the Bill to do what it sets out to achieve. I welcome it tremendously, of course, on the ground that it is evidence of the United Nations doing its stuff.
One of the important objects of the United Nations is to develop and to codify international law. Here is the United Nations doing this very thing to no small tune, and it is to no small tune when it has the British Government—the British Conservative Government—toddling meekly after it and saying, "Yes, yes, this is good." This is a wonderful thing from the point of view of those who watch the United Nations and its success or failure.
When we speak of the United Nations, we think either of the nation States


of which it is composed or of the machinery, its Secretariat. We think of the nation States as either, at least, abiding by the Charter or not going directly contrary to it, and we say that they are doing right by the United Nations, and we think of an energetic and efficient Secretariat when we say that the United Nations is doing its stuff well. Credit can be given to both sides.
This Convention of the High Seas had its origin in the unilateral declaration by President Truman that he, on behalf of the United States, took the right, I think in 1945, to the United States to exploit a considerable part of the waters adjacent to its territory. As we have heard, Conventions, one of which we are dealing with in the Bill, came into being in 1958. All these years have lapsed before Her Majesty's Government have come, and then in rather a hurry to judge from what happened in another place, to ask Parliament to pass this immensely important Bill.
The Minister talked about the North Sea and what would happen there, but that is not the end of the story by any means. Every part of the world can be involved in a very short time, if not today. It will not be only the North Sea, because there is a definition in the Convention, for which I do not suppose Her Majesty's Government were solely responsible, which gives rise to considerable fears about what may happen in the future. I am sorry that the Government have been so sluggish once more in a United Nations matter.
Why is it that the Government are so chary and so unwilling to come to school, so to speak, to learn the facts of this century in connection with the United Nations? Many other nations have recognised that a sovereign State is now a complete anachronism and that everything, more and more, must be in the direction of world institutions and of a more sensible rationalisation of world affairs rather than having them dealt with, or attempted to be dealt with, in little bits parcelled throughout the world. The Government, however have come rather unwillingly to school and we congratulate them.
There are many points in the Bill, which will be dealt with in Committee, on which it will be fair to doubt whether the Bill is doing what it sets out to do. There will be a good deal of

clean fun on the part of the legal profession dealing with the Bill and I warn Scotsmen that if they are not careful they will have their jurisdiction ousted on these installations. It is true that power is given to accord Scottish jurisdiction full rights on these installations, but that jurisdiction can be given by Order in Council to any part of the United Kingdom, though I do not suppose that with a Scottish Prime Minister that will be done at present. I have no doubt that Scottish installations off the Scottish coast should have Scottish jurisdiction applicable to them, but it is not certain that they will have.
There is also the question, for example, of the law applying to the consumption of liquor. We are dealing here with the criminal law. Apparently, it is intended that the law applicable in any part of the United Kingdom may be applicable here. Does that mean that if Mr. A. wants to drink at a certain time on a certain day, on, above or underneath an installation, that a law applicable to certain remote parts of Wales might be made applicable to him when he is drinking on the North Sea, or on the Atlantic? These points should be cleared up. We have embarked on an immense undertaking in the Bill. There are all sorts of details which we shall have to look at with great care in Committee.
I have no doubt that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, but it would be wrong if we allowed ourselves to be in any way complacent merely because there is a prospect of considerable riches coming to our nation as a result of these activities, as indeed to other nations that have access to continental shelves. It is with this definition of the continental shelf that I am most concerned. It may have been a good definition in 1958, but I doubt whether it is more than a very general description now.
I remind hon. Members that, according to the definition, the Continental Shelf, in effect, goes
to a depth of 200 metres, or beyond that limit to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said area".
Who now can put his finger on the map on a place where in 20 years' time the bottom of the ocean would not come within that definition? Yet we talk here


about the North Sea. It is rather flippant of the Minister to give the House the impression that the Bill is to do with a little puddle, the North Sea, when it has to do with all the oceans.
We are obviously in for a first-class scramble. Thanks to the Government's delays in this matter we shall be lucky if we get out of our present embroilment in the North Sea with our friends and allies. Do not let us forget "Operation Mohole", which is operating at 4,000 ft. under the sea. Here we are going along glibly thinking that all this can be dealt with by the old-fashioned machinery of catch-as-catch-can or scramble, exactly as the Powers behaved in Africa in the last century.
The Bill should have a Second Reading, but we must improve it as far as we can. The Government must not forget the threshold on which they stand in this matter. Let them have the imagination to act now with a view to seeing that this immense development is not subject to haggling between the soveriegn Powers. Let this thing be done on behalf of the world by the United Nations, which is the machinery we have set up. Most of us pay lip-service to it but I am afraid that there is more than a little hostility to it in certain places on the benches opposite.

4.48 p.m.

Sir William Robson Brown: It seems apparent that the Bill will receive a Second Reading with the full approval of the whole House. It is inevitable, because of the exciting, challenging prospects which lie before us with this Measure. If any form of success is achieved it will be greatly to the benefit of our nation by way of natural resources. This is a startling demonstration of the technological and scientific development about which we make so many passionate speeches nowadays. Here in the debate are Front Bench speakers on both sides of the House wishing the exploiters of these drillings all success.
There is no question that the exploiters run all the risks and that the nation will reap the benefit. In saying that, I ask for an assurance from the Government that these resources will be treated and regarded as British indigenous oil and

gas and that this will apply for taxation purposes.
Another aspect was touched upon by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who always seems to put his finger on the pertinent points. This will not be a drilling operation only; land site installations will be needed to take away the product when it has been found and piped off. I hope that the Government will give the developers national protection so that they will be able to acquire such installation sites as they need at a fair and proper price, and will not be held up to ransom by anyone who happens by chance to be on the spot at the time but who has made no sort of contribution to the work. I refer here to the ancillary rights.
Some very expensive equipment will have to be brought to these drilling sites, and I consider that such plant will be on British soil, so to speak. It will, therefore, be liable to British import taxation if it has to be brought from other countries, but I should like the developers to be confident that if they have entered into a guarantee bond, if and when they send that machinery abroad—perhaps to develop in some other part—they can enjoy 100 per cent. drawback of duty. Such things are most vital to those who have to spend this sort of money.
The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to the Gas Act. As I understand, it is the Government's purpose to require the exploiters to make any natural gas available to the Gas Board. No one can quarrel with that, but I would enter the caveat that where the developers wish to dispose of gas for purposes other than those of the Gas Board—for the chemical industry, or for consumption on their own sites, or for industrial and domestic purposes—they should be able to do so without restriction. Otherwise, we shall have complications of disposal that really need not enter into account at all. I feel sure that the Minister is well seized of that point.
It seems clear that this Bill will get its Second Reading without much disputation, and I hope that in Committee the points I mention will be dealt with so that, in the end, we have a piece of legislation which is comprehensive in character, and will meet Government interests and the needs of the exploiters—the oil companies that will have to


take up this terrific challenge. It must be remembered that we can drill, but do not always strike. We can drill again and again, and still not strike. Sometimes we never strike at all. In this case, I hope that the strike will be of great value to the country.

Mr. Norman Pentland: I have not been able to devote the time and attention to the ramifications and technicalities of the Bill that would enable me to understand it—particularly the legal aspects, which I hope will be dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). I want to draw attention to one or two matters relating to those operating the installations out at sea on the Continental Shelf, and to get from the Government far more clarification than we have so far had.
First, I want to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu). It is hard to understand why the Bill has been so long delayed. We get it quite suddenly from another place. Everyone this afternoon has agreed that exploration for oil and gas in the North Sea has been going on for a considerable time, and that there has been major British investigation into the issues involved for this country for the last few years.
The Minister of Power has indicated, as did the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in another place, when the Bill had its Second Reading there on 3rd December, that the Bill has its origins in the Conference on the Law of the Sea which was held in Geneva in 1958. That conference resulted in the signing by this country and other countries of the four Conventions mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. It was also explained in another place that 21 countries had already ratified this Convention, which now awaits our ratification before it can be put into effect. We are, therefore, entitled to ask the Government why there has been this delay in bringing forward this Measure. There may be a simple and obvious explanation.
I recognise that, whether we like it or not, exploration for oil in the North Sea will continue, so that the need for legislation on and clarification of our position is vitally needed. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg that it is an amazing economic phenomenon that most Governments and countries are prepared to gamble in oil exploration. They all think it well worth while, and there are few, if any, other economic sectors to which capital can be attracted so easily as it can be to oil exploration. It seems as though every country, large and small, is prepared to devote a large part of its financial resources to this end. It would be interesting to know now many millions of pounds have been spent in this way by countries that can ill afford it, only to find that the result for them is a trickle of oil and a puff of gas. It would be also interesting to know how successful British development has been.
Most hon. Members will realise that as I have the best interests of the British coalfields at heart, I am hypersensitive about British participation in oil exploration. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that when the Bill goes to Committee many of us will be watching these developments very carefully. However, exploration for oil will continue, and my concern is to see that adequate protection is given to those who are employed in drilling operations. I have no idea of the number of people who will be employed in this work, but, taking the whole field of operations into consideration, in the final analysis the number who could be employed must be fairly considerable. In those circumstances, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, at any stage, consultations have taken place with the Trades Union Congress about the Bill? Was its advice requested before the final drafting of the Bill?
An interesting thought crosses my mind in connection with the application of trade union regulations and understandings. Let us suppose that a strike takes place many miles out at sea, on the Continental Shelf, and that deadlock is reached between management and men. If the men request their trade union representatives to see what conditions are like on the spot, so as to be able to understand the various aspects


of the problem that has arisen, will the Government provide a ship or helicopter to take them from the mainland to the Shelf?
If not, are we to take it that the Government will not recognise this as being strike action, and that this action would go down in the annals of British history as the first mutiny on the Continental Shelf? Is that what we are to understand from the failure to take the T.U.C. into consultation. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether any consultation has taken place with the T.U.C.
I now turn to the more serious aspects of the Bill, concerning the safety and well-being of the men. I would like an assurance that every possible safeguard is embodied in the Bill. At the moment, I am far from happy about the position. In the debates in another place many noble Lords suggested that the Bill was being pushed through with undue haste and that, as a consequence, many of the questions posed to the Government by the noble Lords, especially those on the Labour benches, were being left unanswered. Great concern was expressed about the lack of information on the legal aspects. Again, I suppose that my right hon. and learned Friend will refer to these in his winding-up speech for the Opposition.
Doubt was also expressed about the extent to which the provisions in the Factories Acts would apply to these installations. This aspect was debated very forcibly by Lord Shackleton, Lord Lindgren and Lord Champion in Committee on the Bill in another place on 17th December last. Replying to the arguments put forward by the noble Lords in the Third Reading debate on 19th December, Lord Derwent, addressing his remarks particularly to Lord Shackleton, said:
The Acts that the noble Lord mentions, such as the Factories Acts, and so on, where they apply, can be made to apply to an installation on the shelf. They will apply in exactly the same way as they would apply in the United Kingdom. That is not to say, for instance, that the whole of the Factories Acts would necessarily apply to something on the shelf, because they might not be applicable."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, House of Lords, 7th December, 1963; Vol. 254, c. 393–4.]

To my mind, that leaves many questions still unanswered. It may be that the whole of the provisions of the Factories Acts do not apply to these installations, but who is to determine what parts of those Acts should apply and what parts should not? Again, I ask whether the trade union movement will be consulted on such issues. According to the noble Lord's interpretation of the way in which the Factories Acts might apply, trade union questions could be involved. This is important, because on my reading of the Bill—and I have admitted that it has been skimpy—there appears to be a need for far more clarification of the way in which these Acts would apply.
I should imagine that in a drilling operation for oil, far out at sea, many aspects of the relations between management and men ought to be covered by legislation, but the more I look at the Bill the more convinced I am that the Government are prepared to rely to a greater extent upon voluntary arrangements than upon the application of new legislation.
That is not good enough. According to The Times this morning, the T.U.C. met the Minister of Labour yesterday to discuss the extension of safety regulations concerning the fencing of machinery. The outcome of these talks could be relevant to the Bill. I understand that these discussions are to continue. I should like more clarification about the way in which the safety regulations will be drawn up and applied on the Continental Shelf, especially in relation to the fencing of machinery and the different types of machinery which will have to be used in these installations.
I say this because it would be disastrous if a man were to be seriously injured or killed while working on such an operation, because of an unguarded piece of machinery and if, when a subsequent claim was made by the man or his widow in our civil courts it was found that, although there had been negligence on the part of the employers, the claim was lost purely and simply because the whole of the Factories Acts or a part of them were not included in the Bill.
Those are the main points that I wanted to draw to the attention of the


House. They can be developed in Committee, but I hope that something will be said about them in the Parliamentary Secretary's winding-up speech. I admit that I may be too pessimistic about the conditions laid down in the Bill, but we are now legislating for people who will be working in circumstances which are entirely new to them, and who will be doing jobs which are entirely different from the type of employment that they have had in the past.
Men in the North-East and Scotland who are now unemployed could probably be taken into employment in these operations. I have worked long enough in industry to realise that a good deal of the injustice and hardship that sometimes arises can be avoided if every safeguard is laid down in a Bill such as this, rather than if we rely entirely upon voluntary arrangements. I hope that the issues that I have raised and the doubts that I have expressed will be examined carefully before the Bill becomes law.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I am surprised that so little publicity or significance has been given to the Bill or to this debate. When one considers the amount of work that is being done in exploration in the North Sea, one must realise that new fuel discoveries would entirely revolutionise our domestic economy. It would provide a new source of domestic power in a manner which most of us have never dreamed could, would, or did exist as domestic fuel in the United Kingdom.
At this point, I should declare an interest, because I occasionally advise an oil company. It is for this reason that I see immense significance in the possibility of our being able to bring to the shores of this island our own oil or our own natural gas. Not only is it a matter of economy; it goes very much further than that if the discoveries should be of a major character.
I do not think that anyone is giving anything away in saying that there is every preliminary indication at the moment, from the geographical structure which exists under the sea, that the present exploration will bring forth some results. If that is so, not only domestic policy, but a matter of foreign policy will be affected. Then we shall cease

to be completely and utterly reliant for our supply of hydrocarbons upon either the Middle East or America. That is something which could have a major effect on our ability to hold a varying policy in foreign affairs from that which we are holding at the moment.
Following the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) and the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), there are one or two points I wish to take up. I do not think that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street has had much experience of an oil well. Not many people are employed on the rig. Once the rig is set up the actual pumping employs no one except a few maintenance men to check how much gallonage is going through. So I do not see many major problems of dispute between a trade union and an oil company, although perhaps the hon. Member would like his own helicopter to flit around in. I gathered that from his speech.

Mr. Pentland: I agree that there would be few men working on the plant, but there would be men working for two or three days at a time on the Continental Shelf and they would have to be supplied by those in ancillary employment engaged in carrying out the work of developing the installation.

Mr. Emery: There is no doubt that there would be the question of supply on the maritime side. If anything came to fruition, the seamen necessary to maintain those supplies would be in much the same position as those maintaining lightships. It would be more that kind of operation than one of men working on the site.
Another point I take up with the hon. and learned Member for Brigg is that when he began his speech he was talking about catch-as-catch can. The whole point of the Bill is stop catch-as-catch can and to bring some sense of order into what will be done in the drilling and of the licences which can be given so that there should not be a general hurly-burly, with everyone trying to put down wells in any given situation.
I was somewhat worried when the hon. and learned Member for Brigg spoke of the Bill as "good, clean fun" for the legal profession. That always terrifies me. I believe that there are too many


lawyers in this House and that they have too much good, clean fun. There seemed to be an indication that massive fees may be earned in discovering what or what may not be the outcome of the Bill. I hope that we can get away from that situation.
Turning to the Bill itself, there are a number of points which are of specific importance. I wish to underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) on duties and tariffs if we find oil under the North Sea. Surely this must be treated as a domestic natural supply. It would be quite wrong if anyone had to pay import duty on what he brought in to this country from the North Sea.
Another point of specific significance is that it seems to many of us more likely that natural gas rather than oil will be found under the North Sea. The exercise of rights under the Continental Shelf Bill to explore and exploit all the deposits of oil and gas are based on existing legislation. That is the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934, but we realise that that legislation was enacted a long time ago when the use of petroleum and natural gas was in its early stages of development in this country.
Since then there have been remarkable advances in the utilisation of oil and gas. In addition, natural gas, as well as being used basically as a fuel, is a most valuable raw material in the chemical industry. Does not the Minister think that the provisions of that Act require modernisation in the light of these new developments? Does he not think it important to provide that those interested in exploring for and developing gas deposits on the Shelf should receive full encouragement and, in particular, the ability to use what they discover as freely as possible in their operations and in those of their subsidiaries?
The reason I specifically asked that question is that if natural gas is brought to this country we have to consider the position of the gas boards as the monopoly suppliers of gas throughout the country. What is to be the position of a company which has discovered this specific deposit? It will have very little

to compete with other than the gas boards and perhaps nowhere else to sell. It seems that there should be some guarantee of reasonable prices to that producer so that he can get a fair and proper price for the product he has discovered.

Mr. Skeet: Does not my hon. Friend recognise that the developer would have the right to export, because, unless the gas is brought within the territorial waters, it does not fall for sale by the Gas Council or area boards?

Mr. Emery: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It seems that it would be our wish to see the exploitation of these fuels made predominantly for use in Great Britain. If there is enough for us also to export, well and good, but let us, first, get the main benefit at home. It is for this reason that everything should be done to ensure that a proper and fair market is available in this country.
What criteria will apply in the granting of licences, for this is not mentioned in the Bill? What area is envisaged by my right hon. Friend to be taken into account by the licences? The Press has suggested an area of between 200 and 2,000 square miles. One would be too small while the other would be too large. I would have thought that the industry would be happy with a figure of about 500 to 700 square miles.
Has my right hon. Friend considered the policies followed in Canada, California and Texas for the geographical positioning of these sort of licences? He must need a certain measure of control, though I appreciate that stimulation as well as control must be involved; some action must be taken by his own Department, while a degree of encouragement must be given to the oil companies which will be spending the money.
I hear that a large number of oil companies are interested in one or two areas. If this is true, how does the Minister envisage the breaking-up of these areas? I hope that he will ensure that no one company, British or not, will be given a complete monopoly position in the better areas, because the nation will be benefited if one oil company must compete with another to ensure that the maximum number of wells are sunk.
As much as I wish to see British companies able to obtain and reap the fruits of this operation, I hope that nothing will be done by the Government to discourage everybody—French, German, American, Middle East, or other interests—from having a say in this matter. It is of the greatest importance for Britain that as many wells as possible are drilled. If this is to be achieved, there must be encouragement to all who are in a position to sink boreholes. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make clear, during the passage of the Bill, the criteria to be adopted in the granting of licences.
I hope that my right hon. Friend is not interested purely in the fees which are offered for specific areas. I am not suggesting that his Department should not be paid or that a fair price should not be received. It is important that the companies being granted licences should be in a position to sink boreholes immediately rather than for licences to be granted in such a way that only one or two wells will be sunk, remembering that it often takes a number of shafts to be drilled before a strike is made.
In the same way, I hope that my right hon. Friend has considered, along with the licensing procedure, the method by which there will be a reversion to his Department within a short time, perhaps within three or five years, of any licences so that other companies are able to re-bid for the areas concerned. Time and again in the oil industry one finds that although a company has relinquished a right, another company has gone in and, lo and behold, has found oil many years after the area had supposedly been worked dry by the former company.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will also consider the criminal aspect of the trespass or piracy of the sinking of wells. I have one experience in mind. In a certain fairly major city in Texas two competing oil companies had licences extending to a certain part of the town. Company A believed that the other company's licence was for an area better than its own. Thus, Company A proceeded to sink a shaft that was not straight—for it is possible to sink a shaft on one's own top-soil and bend it into the strata of the area of another company—and began pumping oil from Company B's area. Company B, mean-

while, had the same belief and sunk a similar shaft so that, in time, each company thought that it was doing the other down; A was taking B's oil and B was taking A's oil.

Mr. Pentland: The hon. Member could draw the same comparison with coal owners in years gone by. In the old days of private enterprise much the same thing happened, with one owner taking coal from another owner's area, and vice versa.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Member may live in the past. I am trying to think about the future, as are most of my hon. Friends. We must ensure that this sort of trespass or piracy is considered by my right hon. Friend. It is not likely to happen often and it will happen less often if the matter is considered now and we anticipate the taking of action should it happen.
Can my right hon. Friend state specifically what will be the area in the North Sea? We have heard about a line half way across to Belgium and Holland. I am not associated with the profession which marks out territory, but that seems such a general statement of a line of deviation or boundary that it would be advantageous if my right hon. Friend could give us the longitude and latitude. I am not sure, even if I am given those figures, that I will understand what the area is to be, but we would be certain that a number of people would have the position clarified to their understanding.
I welcome the Bill and will do all I can to support it on Second Reading. It has not come too early. A number of problems remain, but they will be worked out. It is a good thing that my right hon. Friend has been able to bring it forward this Session and I hope that all hon. Members will co-operate in getting it on the Statute Book as quickly as possible.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: We are told that the Continental Shelf Convention has been printed in five languages—in Russian, Chinese, English, French, and Spanish—and that each version is of equal authenticity. I am reminded of the accused person who, when asked why he had given several different explanations of his movements


on the night of the crime, said that he had done it to avoid any possibility of error.
I do not wish to be critical. This is an important Bill; indeed, it might prove to be very important. We do not yet know. The discovery of substantial oil deposits in the Continental Shelf could alter not only our economic position, but our foreign policy, and alter it a good deal for the better.
Whatever views the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) has about lawyers—and he seems to share those of Jack Cade—he has overlooked the part that they have played in our law reform. It is important that this House should know what it is doing. The only thing that has clearly emerged from the debate in this House and in another place is that not only do we not know what we are doing, but nobody knows what is to be done.
I do no criticise that too much. This is an enabling Bill and I appreciate that the Government and the Parliamentary draftsmen are faced with a dilemma of serious proportions. Why not embody the Convention in the Bill? The answer was given in another place. I cannot quote the precise words of one of our most distinguished international lawyers who had previous experience of maritime tribunals, but he opined that the Convention was not put in the Bill because it would be interpreted differently by the different courts of the different countries who were party to it, and that is inevitable. The American judge who, in the Columbia Law Review, said that maritime law is a thing of beauty and an exact science would hardly say that today. There is no unanimous definition of territorial waters. Each country applies its own interpretation.
There are conflicting decisions of the courts as to who has jurisdiction. There is the famous case of the ship that was below the waters in the Garonne. A British court said that it had jurisdiction because it was a British ship, while the French courts said that they had jurisdiction because it was in waters in municipal France. This is a matter of the highest controversy.
Some of the speakers assumed that we were nationalising the subsoil. If I am right—and I speak subject to correction

on every word that I say about this, despite having read the Bill a good many times—it is clear that we are not doing that. I think that the reason is that rather hinted at by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech, in which he tried to be helpful and give all the information that he could. I do not believe that the Government know how this will operate at all. It was clearly indicated in the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Clause 3 of the Covention that the waters will remain part of the high seas, and the high seas are still subject largely to the law as outlined by Grotius, who was not really a maritime lawyer.
Grotius wrote on the morals of law. He was a man of great learning and of great ability, and sort of Pico della Mirandola of his time, but his single published chapter on the law of the sea was really a reiteration of the general principles enunciated by Queen Elizabeth. The international law was founded by our own Lord Stowell in a series of decisions accepted also in the United States, and we have had some recent responsibility in a series of Conventions for making that law uncertain.
We have special conventions about taking sponges off the Tunisian shore and about searching for pearls in the south-eastern seas, and so on, and during the last few years we have seen many countries endeavouring to protect their fishing or coastal rights by demanding the extension of territorial waters by declaring a varied area for their territorial waters, from three miles from an undefined coastline, which in the case of Norway is difficult to define, and rising up to twelve miles in the case of Iceland.
In another place it was rather suggested that the line would be drawn on a map, not by putting in the lobster pots or buoys, but by a cartological division. At the moment one has difficulty even in defining the boundaries of territorial waters because coastlines are notoriously never straight. One only has to imagine, for example, the coastline of co-adjacent France, Holland and Belgium to see their aspects towards the sea in quite different directions and to see why we have evolved the practice of saying that one draws a circle of three miles diameter and where the circles of the two segments intersect the tangent


of those two circles should be the boundary of the territorial water.
Where do we go from there? We are now to draw a line which is to be equidistant from the broad semicircular line of the Kent coast and the undulating diagonal line of the Continental coast, which of course, is impossible. The matter was raised in another place. The right hon. Gentleman, in a somewhat unfortunate example, said that we would start negotiations again and would go and see the Belgians, or they would come and see us, and we would be able to decide on a line. But the Belgians did not sign the Convention, and they have not ratified the Treaty.
Nor has France, yet in another place we were told that the President of France would operate the Treaty and that everything would be all right; that there would be no difficulty about getting agreement with France. But that has not been the experience of Her Majesty's Ministers in the past. We have had little ups and downs with France in the last few years, and this proposal covers the whole line of the Channel.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman put his definition more correctly. As defined by the Bill, what we seem to be doing is merely nationalising undiscovered mineral rights as from the time when they are discovered. We do not take over anything but the right to exploit—I think that "exploit" is the word used in the Bill—but the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we accept that, under Clause 3 of the Convention, this area is still part of the high seas, and international waters, with freedom of access, and of course, with special laws.
Most national laws end in territorial waters, even if they apply there, and in this area to which international maritime laws apply with special provision about the right of hot pursuit from territorial waters, and so on.
When we come to the North Sea, we come to another difficult problem, because from our coast of Scotland we are presumably measuring a half-way line with Norway, and Norway is not on the Continental Shelf. Its coastal waters run to 400 to 500 fathoms. It is unlikely that Norway will have any possi-

bility of developing rights on this Shelf unless she is allowed to claim that part of the Continental Shelf which is not contiguous to our shore, but contiguous to the dividing line.
I am not trying to create difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman knows that they exist and we sympathise with him in the difficulty he faces in defining a Convention which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) said was a masterly demonstration of international amity, but which, perhaps, rather exemplified the difficulty of detailed definition in an international convention. A world government which lays down principles without being able to apply them in detail would not be a very effective form of world government.
If all that we have done is to take over the right to exploit—and in this connection I think that the reference to the National Coal Board is a little surprising—I wonder whether it was put in rather as a piece of orange pip in the sugar beet drink to indicate that it is genuine orangeade. The history of the coal mines in the sea and in territorial waters has not been a happy one. It has been associated with some great disasters.
I cannot imagine that if coal is found at 200 fathoms in the Continental Shelf, it can be exploited. The most that it seems to offer is the right to approach it by tunnels, and that method is fantastically expensive and tremendously dangerous. It may be right to put it in, and it may be wise of the Parliamentary draftsmen to say that in 50 years' time things may alter, but if an oil company sinks a shaft for oil and finds coal, what happens? Do they hand it over to the Coal Board? I am not trying to raise fractious points. I merely think that this is an important matter.
I do not wish to over-dramatise this, but I recall that, in the few days before 1914, when Sir Edward Grey was charged with the responsibility of trying to avert war, he used words which were imprinted on my memory. He said, "My predominant preoccupation was the hideous thought that France and Russia might go to war relying on support when such support was not forthcoming". All this was due to the fact that the French had a copy of a treaty which, in their view, said "will" and we had a copy of the same treaty which, in our view, said


"may". The French thought that we were under an imperative obligation. We thought that we were under honourable commitments which had to be reviewed in the light of circumstances. A harsh decision was made which had its imprint on the events of the time. The House is entitled to know what will be done in this matter.
We are now saying that we shall permit installations. If someone discovers oil, he must get it out. We shall have a sort of little Lake Maracaibo in the North Sea. I do not worry about that. I do not think that all the difficulties about fishing, shipping, and so on, will have nearly as many repercussions as occurred when the Russian fleet arrived on the Dogger Bank.
We are still subject to the law of the high seas, yet the right hon. Gentleman says that ownership in this matter will pass to the Crown and that ownership of the right to exploit is vested in the Crown. That I cannot understand, because the only result apparently is that the matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Crown Commissioners. I should have thought that if any body was unsuitable to take over a substantial and important area of the industrial planning of our future it was surely the Crown Commissioners, who are mostly excellent gentlemen doing, no doubt, their job very well, but it is nothing to do with this matter—unless one found an oil gusher at Balmoral by mistake. So far as I can see, trying to find an explanation of this, it is rather based on a harp-back to the old theory that ownership of the country's land rests with the Crown, that a fee simple was a tenancy and not, as now, a freehold, and that was abolished in 1925.
So we now have a right to exploit the subsoil of the sea as part of the Crown estates. What law applies? The Bill says that we shall delegate to the Privy Council the right to make Orders in Council—here the words are vague, and the explanation vaguer; I do not say that discourteously—applying the law of some part of the United Kingdom or some part of the law. The House should know what will be done. If we are to have oil installations, employment of considerable danger will be involved. We shall have a type of employment which is substantially new. We may have to

make special regulations for the safety of workers beyond those embodied in our Factories Acts.
The Bill talks about our criminal law and civil law. We do not really have a criminal law and a civil law. It is true that people write books about the criminal law. As a matter of convenience, they write books about civil law. The common law is a mixture of both. If a worker in these installations at sea has a fatal accident criminal questions and questions about failure to comply with obligations may arise. There will be wide questions of responsibility for compensation for the workers. Not only the question of National Insurance, but the right to damages must be protected. The right to damages is usually called a right to damages at common law.
I hope to have the privilege of hearing my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) on the question whether one can delegate to the Privy Council the right to make an Order in Council in respect of certain installations outside territorial waters applying a whole set of laws, or cutting some out, or altering them, or limiting them, and so on. I do not believe that it can be done. We may find that the powers given by the Bill are not effective to this extent. I cannot understand why the Bill does not provide that the law relating to injury, damage and so on, shall apply to works being carried on under licences by the Crown Commissioners or by Her Majesty's Government. That could be done by statute. But even if that happened problems would be created because the conflict in international law would still be unresolved.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Reading is right in saying that that this Measure probably can be worked only by a wide measure of mutual agreement. He referred to the possibility of conflict between the oil companies. I confess that for some years I have been preoccupied by the power of many large international companies. We know that the power behind the throne in many countries is very often a large firm. I give as examples British Guiana, Venezuela, where two large undertakings are concerned, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Many of these great industrial concerns behave very well, but they


exercise power almost equal to that of Governments. The next war might be between Shell Mex and Esso.
It may well be that, if international rivalries are being developed in international waters, any Government endeavouring to operate this Bill may be confronted with problems of the greatest possible difficulty. I am not sure that this is avoidable. I think that the Bill could have been more forthcoming and specific, but, unhappily, I still wonder what is the sort of property right in a concept of an area with a radius of 500 yards in an outer radius of 500 metres to be booked from—what, the centre of the installation or from each installation? That is an area over which there is no ownership. It is an area of the high seas in which we intend to operate our municipal law. It will not be easy, and I am glad that the responsibility for operating it is not on me—I almost said, on the right hon. Gentleman, but perhaps that may not happen. I should be going further than I intended if I said that.
The noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government in another place talked about the mid-Atlantic as one of the visions of the future. The Mohole operations are already at 4,000 metres. It is true that the rapid advance of science makes major miracles possible. I was brought up on the simple proposition cujus est solum, ejus usque ad coelum est ed ad infera—that is, the owner of the soil had everything up to heaven or down to hell, or whatever it was beneath. Unhappily, although we do not know much about where heaven is, we know now a good deal more about where it is not. In an expanding universe, it is difficult to preserve that concept inviolate.
It is a strange concept to say that we do not own the marine subsoil, but that we own the right to exploit it, with, strangely enough—although the Bill does not seem to embody this part of the Convention—a right to gather those forms of crustacea which have a more or less pedestrian motion. A passion for limpets is almost a reversion to type by the Tory Party.
We have the right to exploit and then we have an installation and then we have a circle drawn on the high seas to which we apply a whole series of laws about

security from accidents and rights of employment and, I hope, special provision for safety. It is not easy. I hope that it may be possible, in Committee, to revert to some of these questions and to go into them in much more detail.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I do not envisage many of the difficulties to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has referred. Article 6 of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf provides for the drawing of the medium line between neighbouring States and one can envisage having a number of indentures in various territorial waters; but in Europe already there are joint zones between West Germany and Holland where difficulties would have been likely to arise. I would have thought that the law as outlined by that Convention is perfectly clear at this stage, and I suppose that in the near future—the naval boundary will be subject to negotiations between neighbouring States. My right hon. Friend should come out of this remarkably well, as a very large part of the acreage of the North Sea lies inside our province.
My right hon. Friends have been chided for not having taken action in time. The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) spoke of the Truman Declaration of 1945, but I think that he meant the Truman Declaration of 1949. That cuts the time by four years. We have not been asleep on this matter. Matters like this normally arise in the House only when it is necessary to take appropriate action. Hon. Members will recollect the Sarawak (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council, 1954, which provided for a Continental Shelf delineation in that part of the world and that this was followed in 1958 by the North Borneo (Definition of Boundaries) Order in Council.
Much of the exploration which has gone on in the North Sea has arisen from the fact that very substantial reserves of natural gas, to the tune of 1 million million cubic metres, have been discovered in North Holland, very much larger than other deposits found in Europe, larger than those in South-West France and to some extent rivalling some of the big deposits in the United


States of America. When it became apparent that the reserves in North Holland were very large, it was thought possible that similar formations extended into the North Sea. It became important that something should be done, before concessions would be granted seismic and other surveys had to be carried out. Last year I threatened to introduce a Ten Minute Rule Bill on this subject, but decided against this course on an assurance that a Bill would be brought. I do not think that my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have been out of touch. Appropriate action has been taken as occasion has demanded.
There is one feature of the debate which I regret. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) brought in the political element and tried to make party capital out of the Bill. He exercised a certain ingenuity and specious argument, but he did not do himself justice. He said that I did not listen to his argument but I castigate him for not having read his documents. Section 1 of the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934, vests the property of petroleum in the United Kingdom in the Crown, so that there is complete nationalisation of petroleum lying in situ. The position offshore is entirely different. With the Continental Shelf the convention has conceded only the right to "explore and exploit" and the installations themselves do not carry the status of islands, although the civil law applies to them. Thus less nationalisation than the 1934 Act.
It is rather interesting when one follows this up to find that as oil on the Continental Shelf does not vest in the Crown, it is captive and therefore the property of the person who discovers it and brings it to the surface. If it is outside the three-mile limit, it is then opened to the oil company concerned, if he choses not brought within the three-mile limit, to export it to the most appropriate market or, if it is natural gas, to market it overseas. The American Overseas Petroleum Company is contemplating drilling off Borkum Island near Western German coast, and, if it is successful in its strike, it may contemplate marketing the gas in Western Germany.
It is only fair to say that the oil companies in the United Kingdom are very responsible bodies and that the first matter which they would wish to take into account would be the public interest. It is of course a very nice calculation to decide what are the United Kingdom's requirements of oil and natural gas, but a fair allocation would be made available for local consumption. This is the responsible attitude likely to be adopted by all the companies concerned.
However, the legal position is, in my view perfectly clear and is that unless the product is brought within the territorial waters, it is open to the developer to sell the oil or natural gas wherever he will according to the marketing conditions and proximity of consumers concerned. If natural gas is brought within territorial waters, it comes within the ambit of the various Gas Acts and would then be marketed by the gas industry of the United Kingdom. These things are very important and we should take note of them.
While the Bill provides certain civil and criminal penalties for acts of omission on installations, there is nothing to protect the oil or the resources of the shelf itself. There is no provision in the Bill which will attach a criminal penalty for any unlawful intervention, exploration or removal.

Mr. Emery: Piracy.

Mr. Skeet: My hon. Friend suggests piracy and in that one word he is making a substantial point. At present, off Western Germany and outside territorial waters a consortium of ten companies has obtained a provisional concession. The Amoseas—the American Overseas Petroleum Company—has decided to bore its first well within 21 miles of Borkum Island. That is within nine miles of the location chosen by the consortium for an initial well. The bores will probably be on the same structure and this may prove a case of international poaching. All that I am saying is that my right hon. Friend will fall into the same difficulty unless he takes adequate powers and gives Her Majesty's ships the right to enforce the law which would have to be stated in this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) has mentioned angular drills. It would be rather amusing if after a large structure had been located on the shelf a number of companies enjoyed the fruits of their researches. I am delighted to hear from the hon. and learned Member for Brigg that where there is a large investment, the companies or interests should be entitled to a fair reward. Perhaps this is something which should be passed on to his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson).
I stress the point of criminal sanctions. There is no provision in the Bill. Although Clause 3(2) appears to cover them, it does not do so. My right hon. Friend might receive a certain mental stimulation by referring to Public Law 212 of the 83rd Congress of the United States of America. American experience of drilling goes back to 1910 when initial drilling occurred on Lake Louisiana. Perhaps I should say that about 20,000 million tons of oil are likely to be located under the sea of which one-third is likely to be in the Persian Gulf. Of the free world daily production of 12·3 million barrels in 1962, approximately 22 per cent. came from under the water. Underwater drilling though new to us is not to others.
The Americans have been looking into this matter for many years and have provided in Public Law 212, Section 4:

Orders of the Day — LAWS APPLICABLE TO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF

… The Constitution and laws and civil and political jurisdiction of the United States are hereby extended to the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf and to all artificial islands and fixed structures which may be erected thereon … to the same extent as if the outer Continental Shelf were an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction located within a State."

It goes on to deal with the state position and later says:
Any person who knowingly and willfully violates any rule or regulation prescribed by the Secretary for the prevention of waste, the conservation of the natural resources, or the protection of correlative rights shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour and punishable by a fine … or by imprisonment …
I would have thought that something along those lines would commend itself to my right hon. Friend. The Government obviously have it in mind, because it was said in another place that this aspect would be considered most seriously.

I want to say a few words about the definition of the Continental Shelf. I fully accept that there are two factors involved in Article 1 of the 1958 Convention. One is that of the vertical dimension of 200 metres, but this, I would have thought, is of little importance because we now have accepted the criterion of exploitability. This was abandoned as a test in 1953 and later reaccepted in 1956. Considering that drilling is now undertaken in between 175 ft. and 250 ft. of water and practically up to between 400 ft. and 500 ft., work in 1,000 ft. of water will not be far off. One realises that the Continental Shelf will be ever receding into the Atlantic. It will be determined, of course, by exploitability, and my right hon. Friend has indicated that that is where he will put the major part of emphasis.

Article 6 deals with the Shelf between neighbouring States. This is the medium line or an area of agreement. It would be quite improper to include either the 1958 Convention in this Bill or to delineate the actual line I have referred to in the two Orders in Council, one for Sarawak and one for North Borneo, and I think that that has been done by the executive simply by taking distances and bearings from light structures and other salient points and linking them up as the frontal line. This can be done quite conventionally by the executive itself and I do not think that there would be any great dispute if these bearings and distances were brought before this House. There is ample precedent for this, and I think that this is the course which should be followed.

I am rather distressed to find that there is no indication in the Bill relating to ancillary rights. Hon. Members may remember that we spent a considerable time upstairs during the discussions on the Pipe-lines Act, 1962 and it seems to be an extraordinary addiction of the Ministry that they would give so little support for the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. It was argued at length that this Act should be included because ancillary rights were important, and that is particularly so in connection with the Continental Shelf Bill. It may be that the facilities have to be built on land in order to facilitate exploration, drilling and


development or to provide storage of anything that may come as a fruit from the earth.

This was the result according to Section 57 of the Pipe-lines Act. "Reference in Section 3(2,b) in the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923 (specifying that ancillary rights may be granted under the Act) to the conveyance of minerals shall be construed as not including conveyance by pipeline." It is extraordinary, too, that with coal, several years earlier, the 1923 Procedure was ruled out. The procedure by application to the High Court is well known to the industry, understood by them and found to be exceedingly practical, yet it has been ruled out of this Bill because no provision is included. Therefore, what happens if a developer requires ancillary rights? It could be provided by incorporating Section 3(1) of the Petroleum (Production) Act, which states:
Part I of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923 as amended … shall apply …
and makes full provision for that, but there is no mention of it here.

I would also comment and ask my right hon. Friend whether he would consider bringing in the powers of the 1962 Pipe-lines Act which we argued at some length. He may say of course that they involve compulsory acquisition. Is he loath to introduce these Measures at this point of time? I would also ask him whether it would not be better to have a Bill which was watertight and satisfactory rather than one which might give rise to disputes at a later date. He may say that there is another way round it, and that the companies concerned in building these installations would have to apply by private Bill procedure, which is long, expensive in time and money and very unsatisfactory because everybody for miles around wants Clauses to be put in, many of which are redundant: Now, when we are debating the Second Reading of the Bill, is the time to give notice to the Government that something should be done along those lines. It seems inconceivable that they could have overlooked those two major matters in this connection.

I welcome the general ideas underlying the Bill. I believe that the prospect

of finding either oil or natural gas, particularly natural gas, in the North Sea is very good. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) said, nothing can be finally determined until the drill goes down and penetrates the formation. At present, it seems that the upper permian zechstein, which is the one currently being looked at, is the formation in which it may be possible to find what is being looked for, but this does not rule out the possibility of other formations in which natural gas or oil may be located in suitable conditions. We in this House have to provide the essential machinery for the work to go on.

Now, a question about pipelines. There is the possibility that the Pipelines Act, 1962, will cover pipelines right up to the edge of territorial waters, and I think that it is clear also that pipelines will be suitably controlled in the area of an installation, within the 500 yards, but what about pipelines beyond and betwen these points?

Next, I have a question about reservations under the Convention. By Article 12 the Minister has power to make certain reservations, upon ratification. Does my right hon. Friend propose, in the name of Her Majesty's Government, to make any reservations, and, if so, what? I hope that he is noting this point because it is rather important.

Next, what will be the conditions of the licences and how will they be determined? My right hon. Friend said that they would be laid before the House and be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. What will he say about areas? Will he lay down any conditions about their surrender after a term of years? Is there to be a fifty-fifty profit-sharing arrangement with regard to royalties? Does my right hon. Friend intend to ask for bonuses such as are prevalent in the Persian Gulf? What will be the conditions? I think that the House is entitled to know at this stage what is in the Minister's mind.

The Soviet Union might be interested in registering a company in the United Kingdom as an English company to bore for oil on the Continental Shelf. This could conceivably give cover for espionage. Does my right hon. Friend consider that he has all the answers to such an application?

I come now to one or two general points. We know that underwater boring is widely used throughout the world; about 18 countries are involved. Its use has been extended up to about 60 miles at sea and to the depths I mentioned earlier. It is no new thing. Underwater boring is going on, or has gone on, on Lake Maracaibo, in the Persian Gulf, the Far East, the United States, the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of Paria, Trinidad and many other sites. Experience goes well back to almost the beginning of the century. The technology is advancing day by day. Nevertheless, if we do not get the machinery right, and if the Minister is not prepared to consult those concerned, he will give the industry a poor Bill.

There is a sense of urgency in this matter. If the Committee stage is taken on the Floor of the House, it could be dealt with in a day. If it goes to a Standing Committee, it may last for about five sittings. I stress the importance of getting things right at this stage. It is in the interest of all the companies which will be engaged in the search in the North Sea to do so, and I am certain that it will revolutionise the fuel policy of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Hamilton said that his party would like a national fuel policy to be settled. We on this side of the House are entitled to ask, On what terms? If it is to be on a monopolistic basis applied to the whole industry, I could not accept that. We ought to, have a fuel policy in which the consumer has an opportunity to express his view, and, in my opinion, it should have a broader base. If oil should be obtained, and if, as I think it will be, it is brought back within territorial waters, it will then be available to the gas industry.

In answer to a Question which I put, my right hon. Friend said that in 1967 over 50 per cent. of gas in the United Kingdom will be coming from an oil base. If natural gas comes in from the North Sea, I can see that figure rising considerably. The experience we have learned from the United States is that gas will drive out fuel oil and that fuel oil will drive out coal.

What will be the position of Lord Robens' National Coal Board in this eventuality?

Mr. Pentland: What about the miners?

Mr. Skeet: I have every feeling for the miners. I suspect that the figure of 200 million tons productive capacity is likely to be a bit high, and I think that it may well be in Lord Robens' interest at a later date to redeploy and to give his miners the opportunity of a far better job in another industry which is less accident-prone and in which they can have a greater chance of earning a healthy living.
I am very glad that the Bill has been presented today. It is not really out of time. If anything, it is only about six months late, certainly not years late, as has been suggested. I think that it will provide most of the machinery, with the additions which I have suggested, to make effective operations possible.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: I apologise to the Minister for not being present when he made his speech, and I assure the House that I shall not detain it very long.
As a layman, I am not very happy about the Bill itself, or about some of the principles behind it. The first point which strikes me as somewhat surprising is that we should introduce a Bill of this kind unilaterally without having an international agreement on the way in which the Convention, when it is ratified, is to be applied by the member States. This is the sort of confusion which is bound to arise out of the Convention and this type of action by member Governments.
The 1958 Convention shares out about 10 million square miles of seabed to a depth of 656 feet. So far, it has been ratified by 21 States and we need one more to make the number up. I understand that the Minister said that the Bill does not ratify the Convention and is not intended to do so. If that is right, it answers one of the questions which I wished to ask.
When one considers the ratification procedure of the Convention, on which the Bill depends, the absurdity of some aspects of the situation becomes even more obvious. Several of the States which have so far ratified it and brought us to the stage when we need only one more signature are landlocked and, pre-


sumably, can have no direct interest in it. The status of some other signatories is somewhat questionable. Three of them are the Soviet Union, Byelorussia and the Ukraine, which, one would have thought, hardly counted as three.
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) talked about lawyers making a great deal of money out of the Bill. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that history shows that it has been beyond the wit of any Parliament so far to produce legislation out of which lawyers could not make a great deal of money. This Bill, if I may use a more modern expression, will give the international lawyers a "ball" for many years to come.
As an innocent layman who has always steered clear of legal technicalities, I understand the purpose of the Bill as being to enable the United Kingdom to lay down the rules by which the United Kingdom will exploit the resources of the seabed open to it under the 1958 Convention, when that Convention has been ratified.
One point which has arisen is the problem of how one enforces this. Article 23 of the Convention of the High Seas means, I believe, that the pursuit of a foreign ship can only begin not more than twelve miles from the coast. As I understand it, the Convention talks about the "exploitable areas" and applies not only to the actual figures so far quoted, but to any areas where the sea can be exploited by the nations concerned. "Operation Mohole" is at present working at round about 4,000 fathoms. It appears therefore that Article 23 prevents us proceeding to pursue ships which are in violation of British sovereignty at the most 12 miles out, but the Convention enables us to include exploitable areas and it seems well within the bounds of possibility that the exploitable areas could extend half-way across the Atlantic Ocean.
Already there are a whole series of international problems arising out of this. My point is that we are in the position of acting unilaterally, on the basis of a Convention which is not yet ratified, and which shows all the signs of causing more international confusion than anything which we have done in recent years.
Reference was made to the Federal Government of Germany, which at present is engaged in making arrangements for the exploitation of some of the resources off its own coastline. The Federal Government of Germany has asserted its sovereignty unilaterally over part of the North Sea to an area of 150 miles off the coast. This move is clearly designed to keep open the field for her own interests and to keep Caltex a long way away. It is an indication of the sort of battles, economic and legal, which are bound to arise over the present position. Not being an international lawyer, I am in doubt about who determines whether the West German claim to extend her sovereignty 150 miles out is correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) would be able to answer this, but the trouble is that it would take some time.

Mr. Hale: Even the international lawyers are in doubt.

Mr. Marsh: I am glad that the international lawyers admit to being in doubt. I feel much more reassured when I know that they admit to that than when they are going ahead drawing up legislation for innocent Ministers without admitting their own ignorance.
I should like to know who has the claim for sovereignty. It is a matter between two Governments. The Federal Government of Germany have stated their position quite clearly. On the other hand, the British Government, which have not yet ratified the Convention, are introducing a Bill laying down the circumstances in which they will implement and defend their sovereignty. Although it succeeds in telling us how, it does not tell us exactly how far out.

Mr. Skeet: The West German Government have gone about it by way of proclamation and up to a provisional medial line so that there is no conflict with us. The question is for the Foreign Office to decide precisely where the line is to go. The West German Government have not been unreasonable. They have worked out a joint zone with Holland.

Mr. Marsh: I accept that the West German Government have a very good argument behind the proclamation. My point is that the present situation provides a basis for an inevitable increase


in the whole series of clashes between Governments as a result of the 1958 Convention.
Reference was made to Norway by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West. There is the additional problem that the Norwegians do not like the idea at all. They are not arguing about measurements, they do not like the whole idea. The reason is not difficult to discover. It is that there is a deep trough from the Baltic to the Norwegian coast which cuts off the Norwegians entirely from the United Kingdom Continental Shelf, and so the Norwegians are in difficulties altogether. It has been said already that the Bill does not ratify the Convention. It also does not seem to lay down precisely the limits in which British sovereignty will be exercised.
My hon. Friend raised the difficulty of drawing a legal distinction between the right to exploit the seabed and the rights regarding the sea above it. All these are difficulties which are inevitable in something as new as this Measure. That is all the more reason—because this is a new step—that I think a greater effort should be made to get international agreement before a number of Governments draw up their own little Bills in which they cannot fail to give a frontier line or lay down details. Some Governments act by proclamation and others say they do not want to be in at all. We find that the Convention exploiting the high seas depends to some extent on the signatures of countries which have no high seas to exploit but hope that by adding their signature they may get a share in the "gravy" even though they have nothing to contribute.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) made the point about the possibility of submitting this whole problem to some form of international agreement and eventually giving the rights to this exploitation to some international body. I consider this a sound idea which ought to be examined, because otherwise there would seem to be the inevitability of endless frontier disputes. In my view, the Convention is unjust. It has been drawn up by people with a vested interest. In any case, we have had difficulty in getting the twenty-second signature. Even more important, this seems to me at this stage

to be something which is not yet settled, and so a golden opportunity is provided to solve one major international problem which has been in existence for a long time. It is how to set about providing a central world authority with exploitable resources of its own.
We could have long debates about how nice it would be if the United Nations could exercise more authority in the world. There are some hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not think that it should. But the majority of hon. Members opposite, and all hon. Members on this side of the House, would like to see some form of international authority which had power to intervene in international disputes. This the United Nations cannot do for the simple reason that it depends for its power on the major signatories to the Charter. If any big Power refuses economic assistance to the United Nations for any reason, the organisation is completely unable to act.
I submit that the answer is to produce a situation where the United Nations does not have to depend on subventions and donations from member Governments, but has exploitable resources and is able to provide its own wealth and the funds for its own activities. This is a good place in which to start. We do not have to give up anything, because we have not yet got it. We do not have to break any existing international agreements, because there are none. We do not have to cause any enormous difficulties between nations, because it looks as if the international difficulties between nations on this issue are likely to arise out of the Convention and as a result of abrogating the Convention. I cannot help feeling that we are in the position that we were in perhaps 100 years ago, when we discovered unexplored parts of the world and we went in and in some instances provided great benefits for the people who lived there; but we took them over without any discussion with other nations and we laid the seeds for a great deal of international conflict in the years which were to follow.
The arguments about wealth under the sea will be enormous, because that wealth is immeasurable and enormous. As a lay Member of Parliament, I am used to being bewildered by Bills drawn up by lawyers. I suppose that we shall have to continue to have such Bills. The time


when I drew up a Bill myself was the only time when a Bill contained parts which I understood. To me and to a large number of other people, it seems unreal that we should be laying down the sort of sanctions we should impose and the economic provisions for the sort of arguments that we have about territories which, so far, nobody agrees that we should have apart from 21 other nations. I hope that we may take this opportunity to make an imaginative gesture. We have our little Bill which does not mean much, because it does not define the areas so far, and we might get over the whole of the business by providing a meeting ground on this and other areas such as Antarctica which we could describe for the first time as international territory. We can then start to ensure that the world has some territory which cannot be the subject of dispute between sovereign nations, because it is not the property of sovereign nations and sovereign nations have no claim to its resources. That territory can also be the first step towards the creation of a world authority with power.

6.30 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: The debate has been one which we would all agree has been extraordinarily well-informed. The House has not been overcrowded, but each speech has had its own characteristics and contained its own contribution to a matter which is obviously of supreme importance.
As one listened, one had a kind of feeling of floating almost imperceptibly into another new and exciting phase of this brave modern world. We take nuclear power as something which is just one of those things. We use the words "automation" and "electronics" without, in the case of most of us, any real understanding of their tremendous significance in the development of the modern world. And here we are talking about the tremendous wealth under the seas. Imagination simply boggles at the figures.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) gave us an idea of the type of figures with which we are concerned. Eighteen countries are now carrying out borings up to, I gather, 60 miles from the coast. Twenty big oil companies

have been prospecting for two years. Thus, we are obviously faced with a prospect of an enormous new development which, if properly, conscientiously and sensibly used, could add enormously to the wealth of the world and improve immensely the living standards of its inhabitants, both those of the developed countries and, what is, perhaps, even more important, the enormous number of millions who live in the less developed countries and who badly need the help of any new instrument which can make their lot happier, healthier and freer.
I hesitate very much to add to what I might call the "meat" of the debate, by which I mean the information which has been made available to the House by those hon. Members who understand what they are talking about, whether they are looking at the subject from the point of view of the prospector or, as in the case, for example, of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland), from the viewpoint of the person who may be engaged as a worker in the process of prospecting. I will, pace my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) and modestly make one or two observations from the point of view of my profession as a lawyer which may not be wholly irrelevant. Whilst I can well understand the grief and sense of ordeal which my hon. Friend experiences when he contemplates Bills prepared by lawyers, in the many years that I have been in this House I have never noticed that other hon. or right hon. Members are particularly slow to ask the assistance of lawyers in the not inconsiderable number of aspects of the work of the House of Commons in which that help may seem to be of value.

Mr. Marsh: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the main purpose behind the request for that assistance is the knowledge that our hon. and learned Friends can bamboozle and confuse the other side of the House far more efficiently than we can do ourselves.

Sir F. Soskice: I was wholly unconscious that that was the purpose of such addresses as have been directed at me. I modestly thought that I was being of value, but I understand that I was used merely as a foil to try to trick and deceive political adversaries. I am sorry to hear it.
In his references to the part that the United Nations has played in this matter, my hon. Friend did not give the whole and, perhaps, the rather more optimistic side of the picture. He said, and everybody would agree with him, that it would be desirable that any convention which was worked out should, so far as was conceivably possible, provide for the elimination of all sources of dispute in the future. Everybody would agree with that. When, however, one thinks of the enormous labour that went into the working out of the four Conventions—as I know, because I know something of how they were going on—and the measure of achievement which has been attained, I hope that he will think that some of his strictures are capable of slight modification.
One looks at Cmnd. 584, which is headed
Report on the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea".
There are four Conventions which are designed, certainly not to eliminate every possible source of dispute, but to make such modest steps as our human intellect is capable of in the great maelstrom of controversy between conflicting interests to try to work out some sense of order in the partitioning between the various nations of this enormous prospective source of wealth. Certainly, the Conventions are not perfect—nobody would claim that they are—but they are a step forward in the right direction.
I was very glad to read the speech in another place of a noble Lord, which you would not think it right for me to quote verbatim, Mr. Speaker, although I do not think that I would be transgressing the rules of order if I gave something of the substance of it. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, claimed on behalf of the United Nations, as a great instrument of international peace in developing international law, that this was a considerable achievement which should not be overlooked. Here is the United Nations, no doubt frustrated in many respects because of the exercise of the veto and the various disadvantages under which it has had to work in this troubled postwar world, nevertheless in this sphere achieving something really worthwhile and valuable.
Passing from that, although I would not follow my hon. Friend the Member

for Greenwich in his rather wholesale condemnations, I nevertheless would like to put one or two questions to ascertain the Government's reaction concerning them. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and other hon. Members have mentioned Norway. I do not quite see how the definition of the Continental Shelf which appears in Article I would apply, for example, in the case of a country like Norway, which has deep water more than 400, or even 4,000, fathoms deep right off its coast.
One looks at Article I to see what one is talking about when using the term "Contnental Shelf". It is
the sea bed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas".
Clearly, that contemplates a gradual shelf, sloping away from the coast of a country and extending out to a point where the water is about 100 fathoms deep—that being, I understand, the equivalent of 200 metres—and beyond that to any further point where the water is deeper but still not too deep to make it impossible to carry out the work of getting the mineral rights in the subjacent soil
I do not quite see how that description could apply or fit the seas off the coast of Norway, where one gets, I understand, straight into deep water. If a person bathes, he has to be a thoroughly good swimmer. It is no good trying to paddle off the coast of Norway. I do not see how the definition would fit that situation.
Apart from that, the Convention is reasonably clear. It provides that the line of demarcation between various countries is to be either that line which they agree or, if they fail to agree, the median line between them. I suppose that as the Minister said in opening the debate, it could theoretically extend right out to the middle of the Atlantic.
How did these four Conventions come to be drawn up and how, in particular, did the Convention on the Continental Shelf come to be drawn up?


I understand that it was in these circumstances that nation after nation in the second half of the 1940s, and in increasing numbers in the 1950s, were making unilateral claims by declaration to parts of the Continental Shelf adjoining their own shores. This was a situation which unless regulated was likely to lead to chaos and conflicting claims. It was in order to put an end to that and to introduce some measure of control and reason that these Conventions were negotiated by the United Nations. The United States put forward a big claim in 1945. Many other nations followed suit and we had this Convention on the Continental Shelf as a result.
In passing, there is another question which has puzzled and rather intrigued me on the definition in Article 2. What one can do in a Continental Shelf is that one may extract the natural resources, and if one asks what they are, they are set out in paragraph 4 of Article 2. They constitute, as one would expect, mineral and non-living resources, but then the Article comes to what is to me rather a conundrum, which was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in another place. One is also entitled to have the
living organisms belonging to sedentary species that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the sea-bed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the sea-bed or the subsoil.
This is a very intriguing concept.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was asked what he thought it meant. He gave a terse reply which, as he indicated, in his view was quite ample to explain the whole situation with full illumination to the noble Lords who felt rather puzzled. He said that the simplest way of explaining that definition was to say that lobsters are not and crabs are. When I studied the Bill I pondered a long time on that passage. I took it that as crabs are we may prospect for crabs, but as lobsters are not we may not prospect for lobsters. I hope that when he replies the Minister will be so good as to enlighten the House on the subject, or at any rate enlighten me, because I felt slightly puzzled and I was concerned about the fate of the crabs compared with that of the lobsters.

Mr. Skeet: There are crab fishermen and they will come within the terms of the Bill. What protection would they have if somebody acted as a bandit in their area? This may be an important principle on which it might be possible to encourage my right hon. Friend to adopt some sort of criminal sanction.

Sir F. Soskice: The Parliamentary Secretary will have heard the question and, no doubt, will address himself to the reply.
Passing to the points which I noted to make in my speech, I put it to the Ministers that they owe an explanation of the delay. A number of hon. Members have referred to it. It seems rather curious that we should have this Bill, which we are now told we must pass in a hurry, when the Conventions were negotiated as far back as 1958 and this country is one of the last two who will ratify. The other country concerned is France who, according to the noble Lord in another place, had good reasons, whatever they may be, for being last or next to last. The Parliamentary Secretary should say something about this because, as everybody has said, this is an important Bill.
I pass now to another topic, and that is blow-outs. Considerable concern has been naturally felt over the possibility of blow-outs. This is one of those phrases which terrify people who do not understand the oil industry, and I am one of those persons. To speak of a blowout 100 fathoms below the surface of the sea is terrifying to me. Can one stop it? What are the dangers? And what are the dimensions of the risk of pollution by the escape of oil from the bottom of the sea? If the Minister can say something about this he will considerably reassure people like the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. The council has made representations on this aspect of the matter and is naturally concerned about the possibility of large amounts of oil streaming from a burst in a vein, or whatever the term is, and defiling our coastline. I do not know how far, from an engineering point of view, it is possible to staunch it, stop it or bung it up, or whatever the phrase is. This is a matter for concern.
Considerable criticism has been directed to the Clause which imposes a penalty upon the person operating the process of drilling unless he can show that he took all reasonable steps and did everything he could to staunch the outflow. I ask from an engineering point of view whether it would not be possible to require that certain specific precautions are taken, as a mandatory absolute obligation when drilling is performed, to minimise as far as it is conceivably possible the risk of blow-outs. Obviously they can do a great deal of harm, particularly if at that depth of water it is not easy to stop them once they have begun. I should be grateful for any information the Minister can give.
I was impressed by the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street. He is concerned about the safety of persons working on these installations. This is provided for, if at all, only in Clause 3(2) which contains what I should have thought in itself was a somewhat objectionable power of making, by way of delegation, orders which shall apply the whole of the civil law of the country to installations which may be out at sea in various parts of the Continental Shelf.
It would have been far more satisfactory if the Government had made part of the Bill at any rate the important British statutes which would be made applicable extra-territorially to these installations. Although we have to use delegated legislation a great deal, and valuable use of it is made, it is not satisfactory to be able holus bolus to apply the whole of the civil law by subordinate orders to these installations. And the Government have not used very happy language to do it.
They have said that
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the determination, in accordance with the law in force in such part of the United Kingdom as may be specified in the Order, of questions arising out of acts or omissions taking place in a designated area …
They do not say what acts or omissions they are talking about. They do not say, and they ought not to be able by delegated legislation to say, what is to happen if there is an actual omission in these installations and what omissions they are talking about. I make the further point

that delegated legislation, anythow, should not be used on this extensive scale.
As has been said, we ought to know, for example, what provisions of the Factories Acts and other Acts, specifically concerned with the safety of the workers in what of necessity must be a dangerous operation far out at sea, are to be applicable in terms for the preservation of their safety. Equally, when one considers the application of the criminal law, are the words in Clause 3(1) apt to make it an offence, for example, not to take the precautions which are enjoined upon factory owners with reference to the safety of persons working in factories? The subsection does not say whether these installations are to be factories within the meaning of the Factories Acts. What has been done is by a single stroke of the pen to try to make applicable a lot of criminal legislation, with the result that there is considerable obscurity which we shall want to probe in Committee. I do not think that Clause 3(1) or 3(2) are satisfactory as designed.
May I ask a question about what was said by the hon. Member for Willesden, East? It looks to me as if what he said is right, if I may say so with respect, on the purely legal point, but I should like confirmation from the Minister. What is the position about natural gas? If it is obtained outside the limits of territorial waters by a developer, can he straightaway export it, or is he bound by Section 52 of the Gas Act, 1948, to sell it or offer it for sale to the Gas Board? What is the Minister's intention? I know that Section 4 of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934, is incorporated in the Bill by Clause 1(3), and it seems to me that there is some conflict involved between Section 52 of the 1948 Act and Section 4 of the 1934 Act. I will not trouble the House with tiresome legal points because I should no doubt incur comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, but I am not trying to ask trick questions; I am asking questions which I should like answered, and I hope that my hon. Friend believes me when I say that. Perhaps he will believe me because he has not put me up to the questions. They are on my own initiative.
The position seems to be that the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. 1946 is made applicable and that all coal


obtained from the seabed necessarily vests in the Coal Board which can then, if it wishes, export it. But in respect of oil and natural gas, am I right in thinking that a developer outside the territorial limit can get the natural gas and, under licence under the Petroleum (Production) Act in the case of oil, can export both the oil and the gas? Is that the position? I do not know what is the position about crabs, but not lobsters—whether they can be exported or what happens to them when they are got. I do not know whether they have to be sold to any concern in this country. Perhaps the Minister can tell us that.
A number of questions were asked, which I shall not repeat but shall emphasise, about the principles upon which these licenses will be granted under the 1934 Act. In particular, I am concerned about the amenity aspect. Is it open to the Minister—I think that under the terms of the 1934 Act it is doubtful—in considering whether he will grant a licence to a developer to take into account the possible amenity effect of the work which the developer wishes to carry out? I suppose that there will be many designated areas. There are 20 oil companies operating, and we may have a rash of several hundreds of these installations—whatever they look like. They rest on the water, sometimes on legs going to the bottom of the sea and sometimes, I understand—I may be wrong—being anchored. Can the amenity aspect be taken into account and compliance with amenity considerations made a condition of the grant of the licence? I shall be grateful if the Minister will be good enough to tell us.
As speakers from the Opposition often do, not unreasonably, I would say that this is a Bill which we must consider vary closely in Committee. It is a difficult Bill with a number of possible implications. But with that caveat I say, speaking for myself, that I greatly welcome it. It is obviously necessary to try to put into some legal framework the emerging problems which must arise as we proceed to address ourselves in the 1960s and 1970s to the exploitation of the seabed—we as a nation in the comity of nations who are equally concerned in the matter. It is a necessary Bill. Speaking personally, I welcome it

very much, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends, but we shall have to press the Minister closely when we consider individual Clauses in Committee.

6.55 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): I am obliged to the House for, on the whole, the very friendly welcome which the Bill has received. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) for the courtesy of his speech. Despite the appalling reputation which he was given by his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), far from bamboozling anybody, he put his questions perfectly fairly, and I accept that they are all serious. I hope that he will forgive me for feeling that I have been under fairly close cross-examination for the last few minutes. If I am unable to give him a detailed answer to all the points which he has raised, I am sure that he will not be entirely surprised. It is not because I wish to evade them, but he more than anybody will appreciate the difficulty which we face in treading what is very new ground.
All Governments face an appalling dilemma in choosing their methods of legislation. Either they produce a great book of which no ordinary person can understand one single word, but which is said to comprehend the whole of the scene, or they produce a simple document like this, leaving quite a lot of questions unanswered, it is true, and the criticism comes from a rather different direction.
May I deal with the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), and by almost all speakers on all sides of the House, concerning the conditions under which the licences will be granted? The short answer is that the regulations under which the licences will be granted will be drafted with a view to securing the efficient and prompt exploitation of whatever resources may be below the seabed in the relevant areas.
I echo what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the immense labour which went into the framing of these conventions. I thought that the hon. Member for Greenwich was a good deal less than fair to what has been a signal effort of international


co-operation, and I suggest that had any attempt been made to establish with completion and nicety all the boundaries between the participating nations who have interests here, the task would have been unending and no progress would have been achieved at all.
May I answer the question about Norway? The Government's view is that the Norwegian Deep is not deep enough to preclude Norway from operating on the subsoil of the shallower waters beyond.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and others roundly charged us for delay. He knows the pressure upon the parliamentary timetable. Apart from that, no serious damage has been caused by such delay as there has been. In fact, preliminary work has been going on, and I understand that it is as a result of the preliminary work that progress has reached a point at which the pressure has made the need for the Bill urgent.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the danger of blow-outs. There is no gainsaying the gravity of this. In opening the debate my right hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Institute of Petroleum was adapting its code of safe practice to working under the conditions contemplated by the Bill. We should like to wait to see what comes out of that exercise, which we think is both important and useful.
I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman as clearly as I can the answer to the vital question which he raised about lobsters and crabs. It is such a great relief when one finds that these appallingly complicated questions have simple answers. The answer to this one is delightful; lobsters swim and crabs do not. Therefore, crabs are within the Convention, and lobsters are not.
On the question of the Factories Acts and the transfer and export of the law to cover these installations, I recognise the importance of this matter. The Government have no doubt about its importance. But I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in saying what he did, rather neglected the effect of Clause 3(1). The position of the Government is quite clear, that if anybody can point out a legal gap or flaw here, the Government would be most anxious to remedy it. The Government are not standing pat on a Bill which they state

categorically covers every legal loophole, and we shall certainly consider the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) raised.
As to the conflict as to which governs the position, the Petroleum Act or the Gas Act, this point was raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the hon. Member for Hamilton and by my hon. Friends the Members for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown), Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) and Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet), and this is eloquent testimony to its importance. It is the intention of the Government to introduce a clarifying Amendment in Committee.
I should like to thank the hon. Member for Hamilton for the welcome he gave to the Bill. He congratulated us on the fact that here we were, without a tremor, extending the field of public ownership and I would only say, with great humility of course, that this shows how free of bigotry we are. We simply do a thing in the best way according to the circumstances. I only hope that he will follow that notable example in his own sentiments, though I doubt whether he will have the chance to do so in practice.
The hon. Gentleman also made the point—and it is a constantly reiterated point—that we should work out a fuel policy. Nobody in my Department would challenge the need for a fuel policy. But I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind the lesson of what we are now doing, namely, that any fuel policy which is worked out has got to be at least flexible enough to accommodate such vastly important developments as this. None of us can foresee the future in terms either of discovery or of technological development. Therefore, we should never be the slaves of the kind of rigid policy which one sometimes hears advocated from the benches opposite.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that in past debates when we have discussed fuel policy he has pushed aside as of no importance the fact that our oil imports exceeded £400 million a year? Now I think he recognises that that fact is an important reason for passing this Bill.

Mr. Peyton: I do not think that I have ever pushed aside as being of no importance this immense volume of oil


imports. I would be the very first to state how important they are from the point of view of industry and the balance of payments. I have never been in any doubt about that.
The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East raised the question of the pipelines both inside territorial waters and on land—in other words, the ancillary rights. The Government made a promise, I believe in another place, that they would consider the position, and we have decided to introduce the necessary Amendment in Committee.
I think that I have already dealt briefly with the question of safety, health and welfare of workers. I should like to say in passing that we are not burking this point, nor are we neglectful of its immense importance. Of course, one accepts, in treading this kind of new ground, that extra careful attention must be given to the matter. I ask the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland), who raised this point, to accept that.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) rightly drew attention to the fact that if a large discovery did take place, it could have a massive effect upon our economy. He asked—and I understand him doing so—that British oil companies should get a fair crack of the whip. I do not think that I should say anything at this stage which would fetter the discretion of my right hon. Friend in making the regulations. It is important that the Government should be guided, above all, by the consideration to secure the prompt and efficient exploitation of whatever may be there. I would add only this. There is nothing to bar him from taking into account all relevant factors and, of course, that would include the consideration raised just now by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about amenities.

Mr. Hale: I know the hon. Gentleman has tried to deal fairly with the point, but he has not dealt with the real point of the application of the law. It is almost inevitable that with these installations we shall have to have new Orders and Statutory Instruments to make special provision for the workers. There are

the Crown Commissioners and the Privy Council with powers in this connection. How do we apply the whole of our common law in relation to accidents, some Sections of our Factory Acts and some new regulations to make special provision for working deep down under water, and some criminal law provisions in respect of accidents? How is it proposed to do that?

Mr. Peyton: I should not like to give an answer "off the cuff." The hon. Member's speech covered matters of great importance, and we shall give them very careful consideration. We are anxious that when this Bill is given a Third Reading we shall produce a workable and satisfactory system from every point of view.
The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), I thought, was slightly unfair in the way in which he dealt with a United Nations document. He complained that it was a great pity that it could not be dealt with on an international basis, neglecting the fact that it was under United Nations auspices that these arrangements had been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher indicated his broad acceptance of the Bill and he raised the important point of tariffs. He suggested, in particular, that the products should be treated, so far as protective duties are concerned, as indigenous oil and gas, and I see no reason to quarrel with that. I would, broadly speaking, accept it. He made a particular point about sales to the chemical industry—in other words, when the material was not sold for use as fuel. I have already dealt with this point broadly and, as I have said, the Government will be introducing a clarifying Amendment in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading raised the question of tariffs and asked particularly about the position of foreign plant used in the North Sea. I can only say that the Government are considering amending the law so that so far as possible such plant will be dealt with, for protective duty purposes, as if it were being used in the United Kingdom.
I have already answered my hon. Friend's point about the Petroleum Act and the Gas Act. He also asked the very important question about the licensing system to be adopted, and I


hope that he will accept the answer I have already given. I cannot at this stage say what size the designated areas are likely to be; that is very much a matter for later consideration.

Mr. Emery: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Ministry has made, or is making, a close examination of all systems of licensing that exist or have existed throughout the world? There is a great need for us to be able not to adopt any single system but to base our system on, for example, what has existed in certain parts of America, Ghana, and other areas, so that we can get the best of all worlds.

Mr. Peyton: I do not challenge the wisdom of what my hon. Friend says, and I can assure him that the Government will not neglect any likely source of wisdom or experience in this sphere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East welcomed the Bill, but took time off to give it a bit of castigation. I do not think that it is quite as bad as he made out, but I do not doubt that after he has given it his attention in Committee it will be considerably and materially improved. He referred, in particular, to pipelines and ancillary rights, and the granting of licences, with which I have dealt.
I do not wish to take up more of the time of the House, and I apologise if I have been forced, in the interests of economy of time, to skate over some of the detailed matters which, in particular, the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised. I do not gainsay their importance, but I appreciate the fact that, in general, the Bill has had a very cordial welcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CONTINENTAL SHELF

Resolved

That it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any moneys received by the Minister of Power under any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf.—[Mr. Green.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report, to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE RESERVES BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

7.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Peter Kirk): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill returns to the House unamended, but that does not mean that we did not have a good discussion in the Committee, where I hope that we managed to clear up some of the points that then worried hon. Members. On the basis of those discussions, I should now like to say a little more about one or two points in the Bill.
The concept of a small, mobile and highly-trained Regular Army of the kind we now have carries with it the consequence that there must be adequate reserves to support it, and these reserves must be trained and available. It will be generally agreed, I think, that there must be two main categories of reserves. First, there must be the reserves that are available immediately—as it were, for short-term purposes—and there must also be those required in a situation of general mobilisation which means, as we must all face, the situation of general war, with all the consequence that that brings with it at this time.
Clause 1 deals with this last situation, and I want to say a few words about it, because there have been some misconceptions about the rôle of those made liable under the Clause. These


men will be required primarily for the reinforcement of the Territorial Army in a grave emergency. As I said, the emergency we are here contemplating is that in which mobilisation will be general, and the threat of war will be general—the situation in which the country will need to be able to call on every trained man to give his services. The Army General Reserve liability imposed by Clause 1 applies to the latest of those who have completed whole or part-time National Service. We think it right that we should apply this provision only to those in the last possible category. It is in pursuance of the same objective that we have arranged for the liability under Clause 2, which sets up the long-term reserve.
There is a great difference between the L.T.R. and the A.G.R., in that the former is a voluntary reserve, in the sense that the liability for service is assumed with full knowledge by the recruit when he enlists. The long-term reserve will in due, course take the place of the Army General Reserve, and those in it will be liable to be called in much the same conditions in which those in the Army General Reserve would be recalled. I do not feel that this sort of liability is one that will in any way act as a deterrent to recruiting, as it is long-term—one might almost say remote—and the circumstances of recall are such as would involve virtually the entire nation.
Clause 3, again, applies only to future enlistments—those occurring after the enactment of this Measure—and here I would say something that applies to both Clauses 2 and 3, and which was raised both on Second Reading and in Committee. I think that there was a feeling that we might be trying to conceal from people the long-term liabilities they would assume, and those hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will recall that we had a discussion about the clarity with which the liabilities for reserve service would be made known to any recruit.
I want, once again, to assure the House that no man will be enlisted in the Regular Army without being fully informed about the long-term reserve liability and the extension of the power to designate this special liability. After the Bill has come into operation, it will

be made absolutely clear to the recruit when he signs on just what his liabilities are. Hon. Members will recall that my right hon. Friend read out in Committee the terms of the amendment to the various forms; and that he promised to place these forms in the Library, so that any hon. Member could see them. There are, indeed, existing statutory requirements which oblige us to make this amendment, and they will be carefully observed.
That is all I want to say at this stage. I think that the objects and implications of the Bill have been adequately discussed during Second Reading and in Committee. The Measure is a necessary solution of several of our problems. I ask the House to give the Bill its Third Reading.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I agree entirely with the sentiment expressed by the Under-Secretary of State—that although no Amendments to the Bill were accepted in the Committee our discussions were valuable and fruitful.
Two issues were canvassed about the Clauses, the first being concerned with the requirement that, as set out in Clause I, those National Service men who have already been called on to do extra duty as a result of the extension of National Service by six months to those who were then serving, should not have to suffer a period on the reserve, or, if they did, that some compensatory action would be taken.
We felt at the time that the Government's action in retaining these men was unfair and that it would need all the advocacy and logic of the Minister for Science to persuade them that they had been properly called upon to do a term of duty. Be that as it may, we are disappointed that the Secretary of State for War was not able to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), who has apologised for not being able to be with us tonight.
The other issue in respect of which we derived considerable value from our discussions in Committee concerned the desirability of making it abundantly clear to all who enlist after the Bill comes into force what are the terms of their enlistment. We had a long discussion on this point in Committee, and


I am glad that the Secretary of State clarified the issue then. According to what he told us, the attestation paper will now include a statement setting out the long-term reserve liability, and an additional question will be added to the existing ones. Further, he said that a specific instruction will be given to recruiting officers to make sure that all recruits who enlist after the Bill comes into force have the new terms of service carefully explained to them.
In the light of that statement from the Secretary of State my hon. Friend was satisfied. As the years go by I hope that the War Department will make sure that these instructions to recruiting officers are properly carried out. It is of fundamental importance that this new liability should be made abundantly clear to all who enlist.
The other issue relating to the operation of Clause 2 concerns the effectiveness of the machinery for keeping the War Department in touch with the reserves. From time to time my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and I have criticised the ability of the War Department to contact the reserves when they are needed. My hon. Friend, being a sporting man, offered to place a modest bet that if the War Department wanted to discover the whereabouts of their reserves it would have some difficulty in discovering where 75 per cent. of them were.

Mr. George Wigg: The lot.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend now indicates that he is willing to increase the figure to cover the lot. I was quoting from a speech of his which was made a long time ago. He then estimated that there would be difficulty in contacting 75 per cent., but he now says that the difficulty will operate 100 per cent. I understand that the Under-Secretary is willing to take the new odds, although he was unwilling to accept the challenge of 75 per cent.
I am afraid that in the past the Army General Reserve was no more than a paper army. The responsibility lies clearly on the shoulders of the Secretary of State's Department. In the past there was a list of names, but there was no adequate check, first, to ascertain who these people were, secondly, how well they were, thirdly, whether they

were sick or suitable for service if called to the Colours, and, fourthly, where they were. I am sure that the Bill will cut the losses of the Government in this respect. They are trying to wipe the slate clean, and I hope that they will be more effective in the future in discovering where their reserves are.
In Committee, the Secretary of State referred to the powers that be now has under Clause 2(5). That subsection puts a more direct obligation on reservists to supply such information as is required by the War Department. The Secretary of State took the view that because of this obligation, ipso facto it would be easier to discover the whereabouts of the reservists. As the Clause stands the Secretary of State has power to draft Statutory Instruments laying down the obligations which are to be put upon the reservisis to get in touch with the War Department.
I hope that those regulations will be sufficiently lightly drawn to be effective—certainly more so than regulations have been in the past. Secondly, I hope that regular checks will be carried out to discover where the reservists are, how well they are, and how many could be called up at short notice.
As the Under-Secretary has just said, an effective Regular Army must have effective reserves. It is not good enough to have a large paper reserve which is difficult to contact and almost impossible to call to the Colours unless there is general mobilisation. The Regular active Army needs a reserve which can be called upon when necessary to perform its duty. Although this is a minor Bill, it draws attention to the need for the War Department properly to organise its reserves. That is its important facet. I doubt, however, whether the Bill indicates a sufficient effort by the War Department to carry out this necessary task.
There is a real problem in providing adequate reserves. On far too many occasions in the past the War Department and the Ministry of Defence have not properly calculated the number of men required for the Army, and have had to move the target from one figure to another. The task has not been scientifically thought out. To digress for a moment, at Question Time one day I referred to the question of the number


of staff aimed at for the War Office. I said that one important witness who came before the Estimates Committee agreed that the figure of 7,000 men was just a figure, and that there had been no scientific basis for its calculation. That happens far too frequently.
In the past, the Government have not provided us with either an adequate Army or an adequate reserve. Our troops are now strung across the globe and are faced with ever-increasing obligations. We have been able to succeed where there has been limited or no opposition, as in the case of Kuwait. I congratulate our troops on what has been done in Africa. So far, we have been able to carry out our obligations. But even with the present Bill and with what the War Department have done to date—which is very little—if we were faced with any real opposition, or were called upon to answer two calls at the same time, with the present size of our Army and the effectiveness of our reserves I very much doubt that we shall be able to carry out our obligations.
The Government have made no adequate preparation for this. The cupboard is not exactly bare, but there is very little in it. The only inference which hon. Members on this side of the House can draw is that the Government are leaving it to the Opposition to make this provision when we form the Government.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: One thing we can be sure about is that this Bill has no relevance to the current emergency. That is equally true of the argument which goes on about selective service. This country, as a result of policies which have been pursued and which are already operating, for better or worse, must face the consequences of those policies. The next five years, in my judgment, will be years of unparalleled weakness.
There is nothing one can do, however urgent the need may be, to provide anything more effective for a considerable period after the inception of a new policy. For example, at present there are nearly one million men on the General Reserve. I once offered to bet that the whereabouts of 75 per cent. of these men is unknown and that no

one knows where these men are unless one happens to have a relative who is concerned or there is somebody living next door. There was no registration system at all. The Government has seen the force of taking powers to impose on members of the General Reserve the same obligation as are borne by those in Sections A and B of the Army Reserve. They are required to supply their names and addresses. The Government have taken powers to make a Statutory Instrument which will require men to do that and to prosecute them if they fail to notify a change of address.
Before people become too optimistic on this point, I should point out that when Section A or B men notify their names and addresses they do so in order to receive their reserve pay. When they report they do so in the hope that a money order will arrive, but in this case the Secretary of State takes powers to make men give their names and addresses and says that if they do not do so they will be prosecuted. How can he prosecute those he has lost? I am not at all sure it is a sensible thing to do when it is unrelated to the need of a man to get his reserve pay by reporting his whereabouts. Of course the majority will report, but a minority will not do so. Nevertheless, this is an important step forward and I for one welcome it.
Equally, let us be quite clear about something else. Do not let us prate too much about having a voluntary Army. Clause 1 is another form of selective service. The majority of those National Service men who were caught at the end of the Act, men with a university degree, doctors, professional men and men who have undergone technical training, were well above the age of 18 when they were called up. The majority were in their early twenties and as they will not have completed their National Service before 31st December, 1962, an arbitrary date which suits the Government's convenience, they will be caught up in Clause 1. For they will be brought into the General Reserve and an obligation which will also be imposed on the Regular soldier. So long as he knows what he is doing there will be no great cause for complaint about the provisions of Clause 11 because the Regular on completion of his reserve service, if he


wishes, can opt for Section D and receive reserve pay. He has undertaken a voluntary obligation and he is to be warned of his Reserve liability and on this point I am completely satisfied with the assurance given by the Secretary of State in Committee.
Then there is Clause 3. There the period of designation, that is to say, the call-up without proclamation in Section A, will be extended from one year to three years.
As regards this Measure as a whole, this is not some piffling little Bill which has been worked in at the end of the day's proceedings. It has very illustrious ancestry. It goes back to the Queen's Speech of 31st October, 1961. A paragraph of that Speech dealt with the North Atlantic Alliance, and said:
Legislation will be proposed giving power to retain for an additional six months certain National Servicemen who are serving full-time, and to recall for a similar period National Servicemen who have a liability to part-time service. In addition the reserve organisation of My Army will be reviewed.
That was followed by the 1962 Act which kept National Service men with the Colours for six months and gave the Government power—which they still possess—to recall 100,000 National Service men without notice. They would be called up on a selective basis. That was made quite clear on Second Reading by the Secretary of State, but let me repeat paragraph of the Queen's Speech ends with these words:
in addition, the reserve organisation of My army will be reviewed.
Then, in the Defence White Paper, 1962, in paragraph 38, the last sentence says:
An examination of the whole reserve system is in hand.
I should be out of order if I pressed this point too hard, but I should like to know from the Secretary of State if he has read the extremely brilliant speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on 16th January and has taken the point about stretching our manpower, and whether he accepts this Measure as the foundation of the Government's reserve policy—whether or not it is the final word.
I add my voice to the tributes paid in the House yesterday to the technical efficiency, the courage and devotion in accordance with the great traditions of

the British Army, of those who have been engaged in the last few days. But I ask the House to remember a couple of things. Only on 16th January, in the debate on defence, we were talking about the Army being stretched in relation to Borneo and Cyprus. Since that time we have had a whole host of commitments which were not on the horizon at that time. Now we have the Army spread out in a lot of penny packets. It has gone into Africa and done well, but, having gone there, when will it come out?
Every one of those areas of action is an additional commitment. What happens to deployment of the Army if things go wrong in other places? All that can happen is that the Government will fall back on the reserves which they now have. As I remind the House on every occasion when I have the chance, the existing reserve forces give the Government access to very considerable and effective reserves for a period of two years. But by the end of 1965, when the Army Reserve Act of 1962 will be defunct, things will look very different.
When we come to the end of 1965, the powers of Clause 2 will have gone and all that the Government will have left will be the new General Reserves, limited in number, those in Section A, comprising a very small number indeed, the Section B Army Emergency Reserves and the "Ever-Readies". Their numbers are nothing like what was envisaged when the Army Reserve Act was first introduced. It is on these resources, however, that the security of Britain may depend.
I would be out of order if I dealt in great detail with the problems we must face. Let me make it clear that I am under no illusion. I may be wrong. When I see the Americans being charged with not backing this Government's action in Borneo, I begin to wonder. I do not think that they are overdosed with original sin and want to do us down. The truth is that they do not completely trust us. We undertake commitments on paper which they do not believe we have the national will to carry through. They are not convinced that we will stay in Borneo, so it is understandable why they wish to flirt with Sukarno.
This all represents a dangerous doctrine. It springs from the fact that there is an appreciation of what is happening in the Kremlin and Washington. They will see what is behind this Bill and they will not be satisfied. Nor am I satisfied. Great risks are taken, but with whom? The answer is simply that those risks are taken with the lives of British soldiers. Time and again this century the bill has been paid for politicians' mistakes—the lack of courage of politicians or their unwillingness to tell the truth—in many quarters of the globe by British soldiers who have been asked to do things they should never have been asked to do because, when the chips were down, the resources were not there to back them up.
For my part, this small Bill is an important one. I do not believe that it should be the last step. I cannot believe that the reorganisation, the re-examination, that was promised in the Queen's Speech of 1961 and the Defence White Paper of 1962 can now be completed with the passage of this Bill. I believe that this Measure is a small step designed to deal with a situation which must be dealt with.
I would like to know from the Secretary of State—and I would welcome it if he says that this is only a first step and that before long there will be a comprehensive review and a far-reaching, far-ranging Measure—how this Bill stands in the light of what needs to be done. If risks must be taken—and I appreciate that certain problems must be faced—we must be told what they are and about the measures that need to be taken if the worst happens. Most important of all, we must not leave our troops out on a limb, as they have been left before, because there are no reserves available to support them. I trust that I have not strayed out of order in asking the Secretary of Stae to give a categorical assurance on this point.

7.44 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): The House as a whole has welcomed the Bill and I am grateful to all hon. Members for their co-operation during its various stages.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris) has recapitulated our discussions in Committee and I was glad to hear him say that we had been able

at that stage to clarify the issues which arose out of the second of his hon. Friend's Amendments. I can assure him that we will watch the operation of the instructions we intend to give to recruiting officers, because our object on this is the same as his: to ensure that no one who enlists does so in ignorance of what will be his obligations.
The hon. Member for Aberavon returned to the question of the effectiveness of the machinery for recalling general reservists. Various bets were laid and taken across the Floor of the House. Under the operation of the 1954 Act we now have a large pool of Army general reservists to draw upon. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) mentioned the figure of 75 per cent. as a likely return from this pool in the event of a call-up. I can assure him that that would be quite enough, with some to spare.

Mr. Wigg: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman completely understood me. I was saying that 75 per cent. would dodge the column of the existing general reservists. At least, that is what I intended to say.

Mr. Ramsden: In which case, I had the hon. Gentleman's argument the wrong way round; and now I cannot accept it.
I am saying that, granted the imperfections in the system of recall such as operates under the 1954 Act, we are satisfied that out of the large pool of men available, there will be enough. When this Bill is passed there will be fewer men still subject to the liability and, therefore, that entails a correspondingly greater need that a call-up should be effective. We will in future keep a closer check—we are satisfied that we will be able to do that—and ensure that the results in terms of numbers will be all we need.
Mention has been made of the long-term reserves. Under Clause 2(5) we can make regulations under which an obligation is laid on the reservist to keep us posted of his whereabouts. We will check the operation of this machinery. We are satisfied that we can do that and we will use the powers under the regulations to enforce the obligation as required.
The hon. Member for Aberavon concluded his speech with what I thought was a rather ungenerous criticism of the Government in the light of the recent circumstances in which the Army has been


involved. He congratulated the Army on its performance and I was glad to hear him do that, but he criticised the Government, if I recall his words aright, for failing to provide an adequate Army or reserves. I am perfectly content to be judged on results.
The hon. Member for Dudley returned, at the beginning of his interesting speech, to the charge which he had already preferred in Committee: that in some way the Bill prejudices or vitiates the principle of a voluntary Army because it continues the use of ex-National Service men who cannot be called part of the voluntary system and thus part of our reserves. In fact, the Bill provides that in future the Army General Reserve type of reservist should be based on the voluntary principle and should be found from among those who have volunteered in the full consciousness of the liability which they are incurring.
It is true that some National Service men, the minimum number because many of them have been released from their liability, have been kept under the Bill on a continuing liability, but this, I would have thought, was inevitable as part of the necessary transition from a National Service system to a voluntary one. Although the hon. Gentleman made a fair point, I hope that he will not make too much of it, and will not go so far as to say that the operation of the Bill will prejudice the whole concept of voluntary forces.

Mr. Wigg: I did not use the words "prejudice" or "vitiate". If I had to use a word, I would say "strengthen". Do not let the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend dance the fandango about the voluntary principle, when they have Section 2 of the Army Reserve Act, 1962. That is all. I do not throw anything at the right hon. Gentleman for doing it. I throw something at him only when he pretends that he has not done it.

Mr. Ramsden: We shall continue to claim credit for the introduction of the voluntary principle, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will continue to reiterate the arguments that he has proferred tonight.
I thought that the most important part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was his reference to previous announcements

—and I think he quoted two about two years ago—that the Government were embarking on a review of our reserves, and asked whether the Bill was the only result of that review.
It is true that about two years ago we announced that a review was to be held, We thought it proper to hold one because from every point of view the moment of transition to an all-Regular Army seemed an appropriate time at which to review the support provided by the reserves to a Regular Army and to see whether changes were necessary.
We held that review, and as Under-Secretary of State for War I was in the chair of the Committee which conducted it. We took stock very fully and over a considerable period of the whole position of our reserves. While it is true that the Bill is the only legislative fruit of our labours, the only result in the form of legislation which we have had to bring before the House, there were other results, not least being the conclusion to which we came that, in general, our system of reserves has stood the test of time, and that it looks like standing the test of anything that may be laid on it on the future.
There were other positive results of the review. I referred to one of them last week when I made an announcement in the House about the Territorial Army. The hon. Member for Dudley asked whether I would refer to this again during the debate on the Army Estimates. Certainly I shall. I always try to say something about the Territorial Army during that debate, but this is not the time to elaborate on the statement that I made last week.
Another result of our review was to confirm our opinion of the continuing value and importance of the new reserve, the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, and, again, I can say more about that on a future occasion.
The hon. Member for Dudley also asked whether there was more to come, and gave it as his view that there should be. As I have said, we are satisfied that, generally speaking, the present organisation of the reserves gives us what we want, and so there is no more legislation in contemplation.
It is worth recall what the present organisation of the reserves, coupled


with what is provided in the Bill, provides. It makes available to us for use before proclamation the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, Section A of the Regular Reserve, and the Army Emergency Reserve, Category I.

Mr. Wigg: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has not forgotten the category listed in Section 2 of the Army Reserve Act, 1962.

Mr. Ramsden: I deliberately omitted that category knowing that it was one that had recently been in the hon. Gentleman's mind, and I hope the fact that I omitted it may be some indication to him of its immediacy in our thinking.
After a proclamation we should, of course, have the Regular Reserve, Sections B and D. the Army Emergency Reserve. Category II, the Territorial Army on embodiment, and the Army General Reserve, There are one or two other smaller categories, but those are the principal ones.
I assure the House that in our view, after consideration of this problem in the light of future requirements, we are satisfied that this basic structure is adequate, and that the present procedure—the pre-proclamation and post-proclamation procedure—gives us sufficient flexibility to cope with the needs which we foresee.
I think that I have answered the various points made by hon. Members. I cannot accept the picture painted by the hon. Member for Dudley, in terms now familiar to the House, of British troops left out on a limb for want of proper provision by the Government of a reserves policy and other measures which we should have taken. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Aberavon, I am content to let events speak for themselves.
I was, of course, grateful for the tributes paid by hon. Members opposite to the performance of all the Services concerned during recent events, and I hope that the Bill—though not in any way a major Measure—which provides certain essential improvements to the support given by the reserves to the Regular Army in the task that it has to do, will be accorded a final Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — TRAINING COLLEGES (LIBRARIES)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rees.]

7.58 p.m.

Mr. James Boyden: I am grateful at this unusually early hour to have the opportunity of raising the question of libraries in training colleges.
Libraries in higher education generally have been very much neglected over the past few years, and I think that it is symptomatic that in the Robbins Report there is only one very brief reference to them. It is true that the Robbins Committee was rushed. Apparently it wanted five years to do its job, but it had to report much more quickly than that.
It is also true that it is not to be taken as a blueprint for every aspect of higher education, but there has not been a rational appraisement of the rôle of libraries in higher education, as to what should be spent on books, how the libraries should be built and ordered, and what assistance should be provided in the libraries.
I think that that is particularly important in training colleges because of the increase in the length of course to three years. It almost implies an increase of one-third in the amount of books that are likely to be required, and the recommendation of the Robbins Committee that training colleges should be much more closely associated with universities and should award their own degrees in the near future emphasises still more the importance of the rôle of libraries in these colleges.
With regard to the quantity of books required, it is almost necessary to run at a furious pace to stand still, because one is given to understand that knowledge in science almost doubles every 10 years.
With this advance in knowledge there should be a flood of books. Merely to keep abreast of things it is important to spend more money on books and to be more efficient in using them. I should very much like to see an attempt made in the libraries to get a more rational appraisal of what is required.
I do not propose to be partisan in the detailed matters that I wish to raise and I shall be very surprised if the Parliamentary Secretary does not agree with most of my conclusions. Libraries and museums share with an iceberg the feature that a lot is below the surface. The efficient running of a library is not always apparent to members of the committees which administer the libraries, because much of it is technical. The professional people are very good at their job, but, having once served on a library committee, I can say that often the layman is not absolutely au fait with the necessities of the situation. Far too many people regard a library as just a heap of books. I am glad to say that of late the heaps of books in the Ministry of Education have been growing, and I commend the Ministry for its recent attempt to make larger sums of money available to build up the library stocks.
Like, I think, local education authorities and other people interested in training colleges, I should be most grateful if, in the Ministry's statistics, there were a detailed account, covering, perhaps, two or three pages, of what was going on in training college libraries. I have had some difficulty in getting information about local education authority training college libraries in the same form as it is given in respect of voluntary training college libraries. However, I was grateful to the Minister for the Answers which he gave about the voluntary college libraries. He gave a good deal of information which I do not think had been published before. My request is that, for the next two or three years, while this is a crucial matter, this kind of information should be published in the annual statistical report so that we can see what is going on.
The information would not be so burdensome to the colleges as one would think at first glance, because there is the 1961 questionnaire and for most librarians it would be possible to bring this up-to-date and to add such other features which might be thought necessary. I therefore ask that the Ministry of Education should apply its mind to collecting better data so that we can judge how the local education authority

training college libraries and the voluntary training college libraries are getting on.
A more important point is this. I think that it can be said that the technical and clerical assistance for all teachers is inadequate. The Robbins Committee refers specifically to this in paragraphs 545 to 547 of its Report. Sixty per cent. of the university staffs which were asked about this thought that the technical assistance which they received was inadequate. I think that if the same question were asked of teachers generally the answer would again be that their clerical assistance was inadequate. This is especially so in respect of training college libraries. There is a particularly clear case for adequate clerical assistance because so much of the work is routine and it is a waste of scarce resources to use training college lecturers for this work.
In the 1961 questionnaire which was sent out there was no analysis of the amount of clerical assistance in raining college libraries. On 29th May last year, when I asked a Question about the voluntary college libraries, I gathered that 14 voluntary colleges had no clerical assistance in the library, four had only half a girl and only five had more than one clerk. When it is borne in mind that to "process" one book—that is, to make an order for it, unpack it, stamp it, put in the tickets, enter it in the reference book and put it on the shelves—takes anything from 20 to 30 minutes, it can be clearly established that more clerical assistance is needed, and we should have data by which we can assess what is going on.
I was pleased on 4th July, when I asked a further Question, that the Minister agreed that the voluntary colleges should take on clerical assistants to bring their libraries up to standard. In the training college letter No. 20 of 9th September, 1963, the Minister said in the last sentence:
Colleges are reminded of the need to ensure that the librarian has adequate clerical assistance.
More action than merely a sentence in a circular is required. Perhaps this debate will assist in letting voluntary colleges know that they are eligible for the maximum grant. However, I hope that, arising from this debate, further


steps will be taken in the voluntary and local education authority colleges to ensure that the library clerical assistance which is required is provided.
Although, perhaps, the best feature of the situation now is that the Ministry is taking steps over a fairly long period and in a sensible way to build up the stock of books, the position is still very unsatisfactory. If one takes the Ministry's own minimum standards as set out in the Library Memorandum of 1961, it comes down to this, that, according to the Ministry's inspectors' standards, there should be a minimum number of 5,000 reference and education books and children's books in a library. In addition, by the same criterion, there should be 2,500 general books. There is a recommendation that each specialist section should have 1,200 books. I cannot conceive of a training college in which there are not at least six specialist departments which require specialist books. Therefore, on the most modest calculation, there should be 15,000 books in every training college library.
The Library Association and the Association of Teachers in Colleges and Departments of Education have gone into this matter very thoroughly and have made the recommendation that there should be a minimum number of 20,000 books in the book store of a training college library. Whichever set of figures one takes—and I should be prepared to take the figures of these two associations rather than the Minister's figures—one finds that, of the 131 colleges which answered the questionnaire in 1961, 102 had under 16,000 books in their book store and that, of those 102, 61 had under 11,000 books in their book store. In fact, in only 10 training colleges was the Library Association's minimum recommended standard of 20,000 books attained. Whether one takes the Ministry's lower standard or the Library Association's standard, the fact is that very few training colleges have yet reached minimum standards.
Unfortunately, the statistics are a little difficult to put in balance, because sometimes I must refer to the 1961 questionnaire and on other occasions I hope to refer to Answers which I have received in the House. However, this

does not vitiate the general argument. In 1962, only eight voluntary colleges had achieved the Library Association's minimum of 20,000 books. Perhaps they deserve special honourable mention.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Surely the question of whether they deserve commendation depends on what the books are.

Mr. Boyden: I doubt whether training colleges would have too many books of an unsatisfactory nature. I think that the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) might even strengthen my case, for some of the books might be very old so that the figures when allowance is made for that would be even worse than I am suggesting.
Only seven colleges had reached Library Association standards. These were Homerton, St. Mary's, Newcastle, St. Luke's, Exeter, and Whitelands, which just reached it, and three voluntary colleges which were well above the minimum, Bishop Otter, Froebel with 28,500 and Goldsmiths with nearly 40,000. This is one way of looking at it and by these standards it can be said that most of the training colleges have not reached an acceptable minimum of book store.
Another way is the expenditure on books, but one gets the same sort of pattern. In 1960 prices, the Ministry of Education recommended that a college of 400 students ought to spend £800 per annum on books, £100 per annum on periodicals, exclusive of stationary, printing, postage and odds and ends. In addition to this sum, there should be added 10 per cent. for the maintenance of books. In rough terms, that probably gives a minimum of £1,000 a year. There is a precise recommendation that no college, however small, should spend less than £500 a year.
A rather higher figure is recommended by the Library Association and the A.T.C.D.E. They say that no library is satisfactory if the existing book store is not 20,000 and they recommend:
The library could be kept up to date with an annual book fund of £4 per student and £10 per staff member, subject to a minimum of £1,500 per annum (1961 prices) and periodicals and worn binding and replacements of 10 per cent.


The minimum given is £1,650 and for a college of 400 students the sum of £1,800.
The results of the questionnaire sent out by the Minister in 1961 give the following sort of picture. My figures are according to the last statistics which I had, 159 colleges, and there may be two or three more now. Questionnaires were sent to 138 of 160 colleges and answers were received from 131. It can be said that the remaining seven were about average. Of the 131, all but four, that is, 127, were below the £1,100 which is the minimum on the Minister's own recommendation. This is the annual book grant. One can look at the figures in other ways, but the fact remains that neither book store nor normal expenditure on training college libraries is anything like satisfactory.
The one redeeming feature is that, seized of this problem, the Minister of Education has recently given special grants over a five to 10-year period to help to build up the stocks. The typical grant, not the average, is £1,000 per annum for a five to 10-year period. This is very sensible, more sensible to spread it over a longish period than suddenly to spend a much larger sum of money. Some of the colleges have had even better grants. Canterbury New College is to get £16,000 for four years, Strawberry Hill, an old college, £10,800 over an eight-year period, and De la Salle £13,000 over the 10-year period. However, the £1,000 grant is the characteristic grant.
The 1961 Report had to say:
Many college libraries had a total number of books of all kinds well short of the criteria suggested above and their annual grants were inadequate to bring these totals up to such a level in a reasonable time".
That was the reason for these non-recurring grants. In this position I very much hope that the Ministry of Education will not rest on its laurels, but will feel inclined to increase the grants and certainly to have another look at those colleges with not such big book stocks and not as much to spend as they should have.
I now turn to other matters; first, the actual seating space in the libraries. I doubt whether there are more than a handful of training college libraries which are adequate for the rôle of stu-

dents working in them, or for the kind of much more sophisticated arrangements, apparatus for visual aids and proper processing of books and so on. The Minister of Education recommended that seats should be provided for 20 per cent. of students and that each student should have 32 sq. ft. of space. The Library Association recommends that the library should cater for 25 per cent. of the students and that there should be 40 sq. ft. for each. The average capacity of 25 of the largest colleges was less than 20 per cent. seating space and for 71 of the largest it was less than 21 per cent. In only four of the smallest colleges had it reached the Library Association figure of 25 per cent. and very few reached 32 sq. ft.
It can be said from these figures that the libraries are most uncomfortable and overcrowded and in many cases are putting a strain on public library facilities as students go to the public libraries to work. Again, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do what he can to improve the situation in that respect. The Ministry of Education recommended that all libraries should have more than one library room. Quite obviously, the processing part of the library needs one room and the librarian himself another. A complex of at least one large and several small rooms is needed and yet 80 colleges have only one room.
The last head of my list of complaints is of insufficient attention to the staffing of the library. The ideal situation which the Ministry recommends is that a training college of 600 to 850 students should have a head of the library, either a tutor librarian or professional librarian—and I shall not enter into the argument about whether a tutor or professional librarian is the better, for this is a somewhat refined argument, but it is clearly essential that he should be a person qualified for duties of this description. He should be equated with other heads of departments and be on the academic board so that the rôle of the library in the college does not suffer. As a corollary, he should be consulted about policy on the library building, organisation and staffing.
He should have time to be in the schools with the students as they do their school work and he should be in touch with the librarians of the school libraries. I found it disappointing that


the Newsom Report made so many references to the inadequacies of libraries in schools. I can go back almost 40 years to one of the teachers who taught me and who was a very active person in the School Library Association and whose school had a model of a school library. It seems as though we have not kept pace with what was then a good development.
The librarian should also have time to attend his professional meetings, Library Association meetings, and time to hunt round for second-hand books, and so on. Far too often, when other members of the staff go on vacation, the library staff has to clear up arrears of work which it has not been possible to do during term. The librarian should be in a position to do teaching and/or research and generally be a full member of the training college staff. He should be supported by a chartered deputy librarian, a full-time trainee and at least one clerk, possibly with clerical assistance at peak periods. I hope that this will be the aim and not too far from realisation.
The Ministry report makes the drastic comment that many libraries are closed far too long within the college session. It says:
It is a matter of regret to find that some college libraries are closed for long periods in the day, perhaps just when students might use them best, because there is no one to supervise them.
In conclusion, I ask for better data in the Ministry's statistics so that we can see what is going on. Can there be a review of training college library staff to a reasonably high standard and can the amount of clerical assistance be increased to the extent of avoiding professional people doing chores which detract from their own work? Can there be a thorough review of library accommodation and of stocks of books which, according to the minimum standards, are not sufficient in the majority of our colleges?

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I want to say a few words on this question of libraries, and I am pleased that this opportunity has arisen. I shall not keep the House any longer than I feel necessary because, for once,

it seems that we may have a reasonably early evening.
I sometimes feel that we do not quite appreciate the importance, however much lip service we may pay to it, of the library to students. The figures which my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) quoted are revealing in that the Library Association has found it necessary to discuss at great length questions of area, storage accommodation, the height of roofs and self-closing and silent doors. One would think that in a country with a long tradition of education many or all of these points would have long since been established and adopted. The fact that they have not shows to some extent how little respect we have for the library and its importance in the whole educational structure.
I am aware that this debate does not apply to Scotland in the same way as it does to England, and that it will be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education who will be replying. In Scotland we have a rather different kind of entrant to training colleges in general. In England the student is usually training for a certificate. Students can be divided generally into the young people going straight from school to training college and the older people coming from industry or commerce to a training college. In Scotland we have many degree students who come to training colleges because theoretically they must have teacher training before they can teach in the Scottish schools.
The library is very important, especially as in my own constituency there is a university which is close to very large training college. Students are having considerable difficulty in finding reasonable lodgings, and, in consequence they use the libraries a great deal more than students in some of the better established residential types of universities.
The use of the libraries for study is important for students at a critical time in their careers. It is essential that the libraries should have plenty of seats and be well equipped with books on subjects for study, but students should be able to use the libraries much as we use the Library in the House of Commons in connection with our normal constituency work. I think that the


comfort of the libraries is vital from this point of view.
My hon. Friend spoke at considerable length, and very forcibly, on the question of the stocks of books in the libraries. I would make the plea that there should be a certain liberality of attitude when we think in terms of library stocks because of the type of entrants. We have young people coming into a strange world because the difference between school and training college is great. They must be given every opportunity to use the facilities of the libraries and this is not always easily done when all they have is a text-book library.
I suggest that there should be a literary section of the library, totally non-vocational, and that students should be encouraged to take a reasonably modern novel away with them each week, because I am quite sure that most of them could find the time to read such books. This would be of ultimate benefit to them and to the students when they would be teaching later. Some of the older students have probably not as good a background as they would like, because they are coming from commerce or industry rather late in life and feel that they have a great deal to learn. The library stock should be sufficiently wide to encourage these students to become accustomed to using it and to enjoy using it. For these people particularly, it is important that much more than purely factual material is included in the stock.
For the degree student, no matter what the training colleges may say, the pressure of a degree course, particularly in the final year, is considerably greater than the ordinary training college course. The degree student should have the chance to relax a little within the library and, instead of always picking on the usual material which is of importance to him in his course, take up novels and lighter reading material.
It is surprising to be that we still talk about the necessity for good clerical assistance in libraries. It is really astonishing that we have not yet realised that trained and qualified manpower is scarce and that it is an awful waste of what we have if we require a senior librarian to do all sorts of jobs which should not fall on him. I agree whole-

heartedly with my hon. Friend that one of the best ways to make good use of our libraries is to make sure that the librarian is a senior member of the staff and have him involved in the life of the college, so that the library ceases to be just a rather dull and murky place at the end of the corridor where people go when they have nowhere else to go. People should go to the librarian when they want help.
The experience of most people in using libraries is that, when they actually get down to it, they find that the librarians are almost embarrassingly helpful. Many times I have, been into a library wanting comparatively little information and have come away with more than I could possibly digest. Librarians all over the country are like that.
One feature of the system which I have learned and relearned with pleasure is that practically every library in the country is just an offshoot of the whole library system of Great Britain. It is one of the great features of it, one of the real evidences of solidarity, if that be the right word in this context, that the librarian of a library in Glasgow feels perfectly at liberty to call on a librarian in Exeter, Oxford or some other place for assistance, and very seldom is a request refused.
For this purpose, the librarian of the training college library should have such a status within the college that, without needing to ask for time off or deal in any way with his superiors, he is free to do what he thinks right for his library. It should be accepted that he is an important man, not just the librarian of the college, but, more than that, the college's means of access, as it were, to all the libraries in the country. We should allow him to mix and mingle with other senior librarians throughout the country. In this way, we shall use him properly so that the college will not have just its own miserable 10,000 or 14,000 volumes but will have access to all the volumes throughout the land.
This is a small but very important matter which my hon. Friend has chosen to raise tonight, and I hope that the Minister will pay great attention to what he has said. I believe that action such as he urges would pay us enormously in the expansion of higher education which we all hope to see.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: We are very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) for raising so important a subject as the state of libraries in training colleges. It is noteworthy that the Members supporting my hon. Friend by their presence in the Chamber this evening are, in the main, Scottish Members. This is a reflection of the great quality of readership that one finds in Scotland. I am not a native of Scotland but, in the thirty years I have lived there, I have tried to be a quick learner, and I have always much admired the great reading done by Scottish people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) spoke about the central library. This reminds me of an occasion when someone who had written a book asked me, as a friend, if I would, when I had the opportunity, put in a suggestion at appropriate libraries that this book should be obtained. In Scotland, we have an admirable central circulating library service. In fact, I had this book suggested at several local authority libraries, and all those who requested the book got a card back from their respective libraries saying that the book was obtained from the central library. In the end, this meant that only one book was purchased and we all had to take our turn.
However, I do not speak here on behalf of authors or publishers. My concern is that we establish for our schools and training colleges a strong central library with a service of literature of all types, especially the type of books to which students going in for teaching should have access.
I may have misheard my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, but I thought that, in giving us some statistics, he said that certain libraries had the assistance of "half a girl." My imagination boggled. My hon. Friend asked what was half a girl—and which half? This is a rather extraordinary situation. It means that some librarians have no assistants at all, and that is shocking. It passes my comprehension how a librarian can administer a library, containing anything from 10,000 to 20,000 books which are used by students,

without having assistance. I do not know what are the figures for Scotland, but I am certain that no librarian there would be content with half a girl as an assistant, whichever half it might be.
Libraries should contain copies of journals, especially political journals. It is important that teachers should take an active interest in politics, and in the last few months political journals have provided interesting and exciting reading. Some splendid reports have appeared in the last few years, and some have been best sellers. Others were not such good sellers. But there should be copies of all of them in the libraries. Very often what is most popular is not always the best literature to read. I am sure that the reports issued by the Newsom, Robbins, Crowther and Albemarle Committees ought to appear in every training college library—besides the Denning Report. Copies of the Spectator should be available, and other publications such as the Economist, the Tribune and the New Statesman, so that the students may read comments which are intelligent and unintelligent, indifferent and ambitious.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside urged that students should read literature which was not vocationally beneficial. It is well worth occasionally doing something which does not yield a utilitarian return. Literature is worth reading for the enjoyment of doing so. It helps to expand one's command of the language and increases one's capacity of expression.
Those of us who had little education and had to leave school early to work long hours in factories under frightful conditions found that our sensitivity was deadened and our capacity to appreciate literature lessened. That is part of the price which one had to pay for working in a factory. Young people who go into the teaching profession today make use of literature to a greater extent than was possible for some of us forty or fifty years ago.
With the growth of training colleges and the report on residential colleges by the Robbins Committee, an argument has arisen about whether residential colleges are desirable and whether more people should be encouraged to go to colleges near their homes. Because of the failure


of the Government in recent years to solve the housing problems which exist in great urban areas; because of the overcrowding of homes, the higher birth rate and the fact that children are more virile because parents now get better food than forty years ago, very often reading at home is difficult.
With television and the radio, it is difficult for young students in working-class homes to have the amenity and environment to read at home. The alternative is adequate reading facilities at their colleges. In Glasgow—and, I am sure, in Birmingham, Liverpool and London also—we have a sorry picture of overcrowded homes and a failure by the central Government to solve the problem of overcrowding in our homes.
Scotland has a great tradition of working-class education. It is surprising the number of students in our Scottish universities who come from working-class homes. When I first went to Glasgow, I was taken by my agent to Maryhill and was introduced to a lady and gentleman—the man was 86 and his wife 82—who bred 14 children, some of whom had become executives in industry and two of whom were teachers, having graduated at Glasgow University. They were all bred in a room and kitchen. My immediate thought was that that couple were the sort of people to whom monuments should be erected for rearing good families in such frightful conditions.
Hon. Members complain that they cannot read in the Library of the House because certain hon. Members talk in a whisper that can be heard all over the Library. We get complaints about accommodation in the House of Commons and it is said that there is no room to work. The House is sparsely attended for this Adjournment debate, but if there had been a three-line Whip hon. Members would have been in the Library trying to read, then giving it up and going to sleep.
Few students in our big cities or urban areas can leave their training colleges at five o'clock and go home and find the conditions or amenities in which to read. It simply cannot be done because of the small houses and urban conditions. It is all very well for people with large houses; they have the rooms. Again, it is almost impossible for a working-

class family in winter time to heat more than one room.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. He is not technically out of order, but I point out to him that the Chair has deprecated matters being raised for which the Minister who is to reply is not responsible

Mr. Bence: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am pointing out the need for increasing the library service in training colleges, and I am supporting my hon. Friend in giving recollections from my experience of the conditions existing for the students outside the colleges, justifying my hon. Friend's claim that we should have a tremendous increase in the library services. That is my point.
It is difficult for parents in the low income group with two or three children at school, with, perhaps, a boy at university and a girl at a training college, and with the prices of coal and electricity as they are, to enable students when they come home to occupy themselves in different rooms and try to study. If, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) had a daughter who was keen on music, she would have to play her piano in a room by herself in which other children could not read. It would be far better to have an adequate library service so that the children could read.
I obey your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. That was the final case which I was making in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland. He has done a great service to students in raising this issue, because reading is important. Although I have had practically no education, except in engineering to get my living, I imagine that the habit of getting a book, whatever literature it might be, is one of the most important intellectual disciplines for a person undergoing formal education and that the habit of reading and of being tested on the quality of one's reading is an important educational process. I am hazarding a guess in something of which I know little.
I came in to this debate because I am convinced that we should do much more to foster the habit of reading and the


concentration that is needed for it. I know that in this I will have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) because he is—or was—in the book trade. In raising this debate, by hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland has done a service, not only to England and Wales, but to Scotland, also.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on raising this important subject and I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, except for the Government Front Bench, there is not a single hon. Member opposite attending this extremely important debate. I make one point only and I make it as an ex-teacher. This is why I feel that it is right for me to intervene briefly to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary the extreme importance of this subject.
During his working life a teacher has an enormous amount of work to attend to. His timetable is very full and, as the Parliamentary Secretary well knows, classes are frequently over-sized. In the evenings he is constantly occupied with marking papers and preparing lessons. I remember the extent to which during the six or eight years when I was teaching, I had to draw upon the reading I did when I was studying. I found little time, and often lacked the energy which no doubt I should have shown, for reading at the time when I was actually teaching.
I emphasise, also, the importance of wide reading during the period of studentship. I know from my own experience as a teacher that the tendency in teaching is to get too close to the subject of study and to neglect the wide reading which one might do while one is teaching. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take seriously what has been said in the debate, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, and will see to what extent he can rectify the serious situation of which all of us are to some extent aware but which my hon. Friend has so excellently outlined to the House.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I also would like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on this important topic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) was speaking I was reminded of the circumstances in our part of the country and no doubt in centres further south of the Border.
In the city from which I come the principal library is always crowded with young people who are in the senior secondary school, the grammar school and the training colleges. They are there from morning to night, and even on Saturdays and Sundays, because the library is open to provide facilities for just such students. There is a proposal in the district, unfortunately rejected already in some quarters, that the 12 or 15 libraries in the city should be kept open for the use of young people who are studying in the higher reaches of the schools and the training colleges. I have a recent annual report of the Jordan Hill Training College which refers to another room being opened and more facilities being provided.
I am not the product of a university, but one thing I have come to understand both as a parent and as one who has interested himself in education is that young people require to appreciate early how to learn. Here I am not referring merely to the facility of having a teacher at the younger stages in the schools when the children are rather spoonfed by their teachers. I refer to the facility when they go to the sixth form and the training college to be able to find out for themselves where information is.
When we come to the House of Commons as new Members one of the things we are told to do is to find out where the various books are in the Library. What is important is not so much knowing the contents of the books as where to go to get the information that one wants. Teaching young persons how to learn seems to me to be one of the main functions and the art of good teaching.
How far the training colleges can cope in this respect depends on the resources available, and so forth. I have no doubt,


from their quality, that the persons associated with the training colleges and the various committees are doing all they possibly can, within the limits placed at their disposal, to ensure that all their responsibilities receive an equal share of the all-too-inadequate resources.
In the new outlook of recent times and in view of the acceptance of the Robbins Report recommendation to raise the school-leaving age to 16, the problem which my hon. Friend has raised will become increasingly important. I notice from the Report—my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear this—that some training colleges in Scotland have become interested in a form of associateship for providing some of these facilities.
I wanted to offer these observations to the House in the hope that they would add some weight to what has been said about the importance of this facility and service, now all too inadequate beginning in our schools and going on into the training colleges.
It seems to me that throughout the whole field of teaching our teachers could be relieved of many of their mundane tasks, such as collecting food money, running concerts, and the other extra duties which are associated with schools. There are many lay people with excellent organising qualities who could devote themselves to this service to the schools, training colleges and universities, and so enable the qualified teaching staff, who are all too scarce, to devote themselves to the purposes for which they were trained, in which they could give even greater service if they were free to do so.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I am very pleased to support the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). If I do not quote my Scripture correctly, perhaps I shall be forgiven, because I translate from a Welsh Bible. I am not too familiar with the English Bible, but I know my Welsh Bible fairly well.
Of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness to the flesh.
There was a time when libraries were to be found only in very exclusive places, in the houses of the aristocracy and in the ancient universities of England,

in Oxford and Cambridge. I am pleased to say it was a resident in my own division, a Nonconformist minister in Wrexham, Dr. David Williams, who founded one of the first public libraries in England and Wales. I shall not speak about Scotland, because I am not an authority on that great country.
The wheel seems to have turned full circle, because tonight we are debating libraries in the training colleges. Libraries started in the universities and now we are very anxious to improve the library service in our training colleges. When I was at college I happened to be the librarian, so I have a fair knowledge of the amount of work involved. I remember one of my tutors there asking me, "What is an educated man?" The answer that he offered was "An educated man is he who knows what he knows, who knows what he does not know, and who knows where to find the information for what he does not know." That is the function of the library. Indeed, no college can be considered suitably equipped unless it is very rich indeed in its volumes in the library.
I said that too much reading is a weary to the flesh. By that I mean this. There inevitably comes a time in the life of every person to whom too much reading becomes a strain. But that is not true of the young people. That is the time to read and to go to the very depth or to reach the very height of things, according to one's conception of depth and height. Consequently, I believe that it is only right that we should give to the students in our training colleges all the equipment necessary to enable them to read widely. That is the capital upon which they can draw for the rest of their professional careers.
As I say, I am a Welshman, though I am told that there is no need for me to give that information because of my accent. We Welsh are very fortunate in being able to speak two languages. We have books in English and in Welsh, and especially in these days it is very important that we should get our fair share of Welsh books in our Welsh training colleges.
The preservation of the Welsh language is a very pressing matter. Some colleges in Wales are now training people to teach using Welsh as the medium of instruction—something that was not


done when I was at college. That being so, the necessity for Welsh books today is greater than ever, and I am, therefore, very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland has raised this subject this evening. It gives us an opportunity to stress the importance of having a very rich variety of volumes in the libraries of the English training colleges, and a similar rich variety of English and Welsh volumes in the Welsh colleges.
We have real treasures in Welsh literature. I suppose that the Welsh hymn book is the best in the world; and that is a big claim to make. I know the Scottish hymns fairly well—I belong to a denomination that started in Scotland, which is where we got our inspiration. We have this richness of literature, and it is only fair that these works should be well represented in our training college libraries.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on initiating this debate. Some time ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and I were approached about the amounts of money spent on university and training college libraries in Scotland and in England and were informed that Scotland came out very badly from the comparison. We found it exceedingly difficult to get information, because one cannot put down Parliamentary Questions about it. This has raised some controversy as to the extent to which there should be accountability to the House of Commons for these activities. Had that been the position, we might have known the exact state of things in England and Scotland.
I have heard a number of complaints in Scotland about the inadequacy, in some respects, of some university and training college libraries, and had we had a Scottish Minister present tonight—and this debate is not confined to England, but is a United Kingdom debate—sufficiently interested in training college libraries, he could have given the various points his attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland spoke of the increased grants for these libraries that were made

a short time ago, and it would have been interesting to know whether the same increases applied in Scotland.
There can be no doubt that the libraries of colleges and public institutions are exceedingly important. I spent a considerable time in the book trade, and I was appalled by the inadequacy of the libraries possessed by many university students and teachers. When I visited their homes I was horrified at the lack of what I regard as the cultural background of literary works. It seemed to me that these students and teachers used books simply for the purpose—a good purpose; I have no complaint against it—of acquiring their various technical and professional qualifications. Good librarians and proper teachers ought to do something rather more than that, since they are privileged in being educated for a much longer period than other people.
That is why I was interested in the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael). Books are much more important than mere tools for the acquisition of certain professional qualifications. They are things which ought to add to the depth of people's lives, and people who are given opportunities to benefit from them ought to do so. Much depends upon the attention which we pay to our libraries. Librarians must have time to be able to guide persons using the library, so that they benefit from the knowledge of the librarians. Librarians should draw these persons out, and point out to them interesting channels of information and personal delight which they would probably never learn unless the librarians showed them.
Librarians must be free to do that, but they are not free to do so unless they have somebody to carry out the drudgery of which my hon. Friend spoke. He mentioned that in many libraries there was only half a girl to do this work. This aspect is important to the whole set-up of our libraries.
When I asked about the quality of books I was not trying to be facetious. Librarians who have to work on a budget are always faced with the problem of what books they should buy, and a number of suggestions have been


made. Some have said that what is wanted is a library of novels. If a librarian is working on a limited budget and is trying to provide books dealing with economics, politics, engineering and the classics, it is difficult for him to spend pounds and pounds on fiction. The same consideration applies to the political periodicals that were referred to. It requires a great deal of skill, knowledge and experience to be able to spend money wisely.
It does not matter to what library one goes; one finds an enormous number of books which are never looked at. I have in mind that in the House of Commons we have a fine collection of 600 or 700 volumes of Loeb classics. These are very rare books, but I very seldom see them used in the House. This is not because the books are not good ones, or have no value, or because every hon. Member is so familiar with the classics that he does not require to look at them. They are never used because Members are too busy doing other things.
That is an example of waste—because every university library would be glad to get these books. Librarians must display a great ability in spending grants in a manner which does not result in their having an enormous number of unread books on their shelves.

Mr. Boyden: I do not criticise the Ministry of Education because recently, in a circular, it has urged libraries to get more up-to-date books on their shelves, but I dare say that there are still quite a number of training college libraries which, for reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has given, have much dead wood on their shelves.

Mr. Willis: I was pointing out the importance of the librarian having in charge of these matters people who are able to spend public money wisely in serving the needs of students. Whatever we think about the background of students, we have to remember that they have to pass examinations. They will read the books which will take them through those examinations. Whether we like it or not, the most worn books in the library will be those which are essential for passing examinations in history,

English, economics, or whatever the course may be. This work requires a great deal of experience. It comes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said about the importance of the librarian.
If we are to extend libraries in the directions suggested in this debate, we have to think in rather wider terms than we have thought so far about expenditure on books, for books are very expensive. A pound or two guineas is a common price for a book. We have to recognise the importance of books and we have to recognise their increasing cost. I believe my hon. Friend said that the present allowance is £800. That is not a great amount if a library is to keep up to date with periodicals and books. I hope the Departments will recognise the importance of this matter because there is a danger of over-specialisation. We are in danger of becoming a nation of technologists and technocrats and in the process losing the rather more important values. That would be a deplorable development. If we are to prevent it, the proper and full development of libraries in training colleges and everywhere else is of great importance.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: This debate has given an excellent example of the value of reading. All of us in this House know that there is scarcely any subject which may crop up on which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)—often off-the-cuff—cannot speak, and make a speech which would do credit to someone who had burned many gallons of midnight oil studying the subject.
Over the years he has spent much of his life among books. He used to run an excellent bookshop. It was a matter of great regret to many of us when he gave it up. He was one of those booksellers who was always in danger of bankrupting himself, because no sooner did he get a really good book than he wanted to retain it and not sell it. It is still a pleasure to visit his home in Edinburgh and find him gloating over this, that or the other book. He brings it out, points out its features and suggests that there is not such a book as this which one could obtain anywhere else.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend has drawn a good picture of himself, too.

Mr. Lawson: I too, would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) for giving us this opportunity to discuss this subject. I apologise for not being in my place when he opened the debate, but I take it that he is not merely urging that more money should be available for training college libraries, but that more advantages would be available to those in training colleges if the number and quality of books in their libraries were increased.
This is not merely a question of having large quantities of books available. It is more a question of acquiring the skill to use books. Virtually no better training service can be rendered in training colleges than for our potential teachers to become skilled in handling books and in learning how to get the best possible advantage from the books in training college libraries, for this will benefit not only themselves but those whom they will subsequently teach. This is also not merely a question of having excellent librarians. The librarian and his staff should be part of the teaching personnel; they should teach the teachers how to convey the skills that the librarian possesses. In some instances this is being done, but I doubt whether it is being done extensively enough.
There is a school in my constituency where the headmaster is an enthusiast of the skill of referring to books. Largely because of his efforts the school library has been built up. It has many pleasing and valuable features. This headmaster insists on his youngsters using the library to its fullest extent. As important as the mathematics tuition is the studying that youngsters are encouraged to do in the library. They are given problems to tackle on a range of subjects and suggestions are made to them. From then on they do research work on their own, report on their findings, say what are their views on the answers they receive from their research and produce summaries of their findings. This is a valuable form of activity which even many adults cannot carry out.
As was pointed out in the debate on education yesterday, we suffer from thinking too much that education is something that begins at the age of 5

and finishes, certainly for two-thirds of the population, at 15. If the skill of studying books and referring to them is gained in the early years, no child really leaves school at 15 or 16, for books continue to open up a new world as the child goes through life. This is a skill which he can acquire at his leisure. It is the kind of skill to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) referred. Books are a means of self-education. One can derive great pleasure reading them, and I regard the acquisition of that skill as one of the primary purposes of a library.
It seems that we are only now beginning to realise the importance of teaching youngsters not merely to read, but to read with the minimum of effort. I have not acquired a great deal of skill in that respect, but by being able to read quickly and easily one derives much more pleasure than if one reads slowly, because one is able to read so many more books.
Youngsters in primary schools are taught the physical process of reading. A young lad reads a passage from a book, and provided that he understands what he has read, that is the end of the matter. I know that some people get pleasure from reading, even though they read very slowly. When travelling in a bus or in a train, one sometimes hears a person reading aloud. He carefully articulates every word. Other people move their lips but do not read aloud, and there is a third category, those people who do not move their lips while reading but seem to form the words in their throats. If we can break people of those habits, I am sure that they will gain much more pleasure from reading.
I am not putting forward anything original when I suggest that we should teach youngsters not merely how to read, but how to get the best out of their books. We should carry that process beyond the primary school, into the secondary school, and even into the training colleges about which we are talking tonight.
We usually enjoy doing things that we can do easily, and in raising this subject tonight my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland has opened up the possibilities of self-education. I am sure that if people take advantage of them


they will acquire the qualities so often shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: This has been an amazing debate. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary never thought that when the Adjournment debate was eventually reached he would be faced with an international barrage on the subject of books and book learning. He will appreciate by now the strange qualities that we on this side of the House possess in aggregate and how widely read are Scottish Members of Parliament, because in the first three speeches made by Scottish Members from this side only one was made by a Scotsman. The second was made by a Welshman and the third by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who is an Englishman and proud of it.
I well understand the love of books of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East. It was another Scottish Member, no longer with us, who wrote a book called "The Memoirs of a Bankrupt Bookseller". That was the late Sir William Darling. The bookseller from Edinburgh, East nearly bankrupted me during the first years that I was a Member of Parliament, because every morning, on our way to the House, we made a ceremonial tour of the bookshops. This built up my library, but depleted my stock of cash.
We have all been urging the importance of this subject. If ever the need for accepting the advice given from this side of the House was doubted, no doubt should be left after the debate which we had yesterday. We are dealing with training colleges in the first place. There are 160 training colleges in England and Wales. Many of them are being expanded to meet the urgent need. They are faced with the task of preparing themselves, in their aspect of the matter, for the raising of the school-leaving age in a few years' time. We are, therefore, dealing with part of the furniture of the minds and training of the most influential people in the country.
From the age of 5 to 16 pupils in the schools will be in the hands of teachers who have passed through the training

colleges. In England, the requisite academic qualities are not nearly as high as they are in Scotland. A man who is a teacher in Scotland must have a university degree. There may be some non-graduates, but, technically speaking, there are no non-graduate male teachers in Scotland. This is one of the things we must bear in mind in considering the training colleges and the nature of the people who go to them. Many young men and women will go straight from school to the training colleges at 17 or 18 years of age.
It is important that this process should be started very much lower down. We have been pressing the Secretary of State for Scotland about this. It is too late to start acquiring the library habit in training college. It must be inculcated in the secondary schools and other schools. I think that it was the Newsom Report which said that only a quarter of the secondary modern schools it England had libraries and that only a quarter of those had good libraries. If we are to get the expanded pool of educated manpower which will continue to fill the training colleges the Minister should be attending to that point. I think that the library in the training college, certainly in a residential training college, should be the living centre of the college's cultural life. There has been a very slow realisation of this in many quarters.
I have addressed Burns suppers and I still have another to address. I do not know how many people appreciate that part of the heritage of the interest in books by Scotsmen which has led to these speeches tonight is that after his marriage Burns moved to Ellisland in 1789 or 1790, where one of the first things he did was to institute a circulating library in that part of Dumfries. Robert Burns was probably the best educated man of his day in Scotland. He was not only educated, but cultured—culture is not one's education but what one does with it. When he died he left furniture worth only £90, but he left a great furniture of the mind.
Another of the reasons why we in Scotland have this academic tradition is Andrew Carnegie, whose name has not yet been mentioned. He established public libraries throughout the whole of Scotland—

Mr. Boyden: And England.

Mr. Ross: And Dunfermline was the headquarters and the centre of the central library system which he instituted. When I went to university, all I had to do was to apply to the Carnegie Trust, at Dunfermline, for my university fees. Andrew Carnegie did tremendous things for Scottish education and many working-class boys and girls in Scotland got their university education because of him.
We want to encourage college libraries as much as possible so that they have reasonably comfortable facilities with space and room and certainly not gloom. This may be one of the troubles with the older university libraries. Gloom certainly grows with old books. A library should be a living and changing thing with a constant throwing out and weeding out of the old and a bringing in of the new.
Yesterday, I heard it said that over the past few years we had a thriving tradition of experiment in education. All this information should be available to all the questing minds of the new teachers who should at all times be encouraged to make use of it and to make use of the experiments when they become teachers. I was a teacher myself, if hon. Members have not already guessed, and I went to Jordan-hill Training College. I often had to have recourse to the central library and I remember the hours I spent in the Mitchell Library in Glasgow, and the reference library of the Carnegie Library in Ayr, where I lived.
We want these facilities to be readily available so that students are able to study in the libraries, for it is from the college libraries that there should stem the discussion and controversy and the quest for knowledge which we want to encourage. What we are discussing is the growing realisation of the importance of technical education. We need to have available the journals and books in all languages which engineering and other technical students require, and not only the students, but the engineers and other scientists who want to be informed of the scientific techniques being developed throughout the world. I know that it is not possible to do everything, but it must be made known that the facilities are available.
There is a tremendous battle for men's time, especially their leisure time. Every night we are futile victims of the "goggle box", a steady diet of death, drama, drivel and Daz. We want to make it as easy as possible for people to read the right kind of book which will be of advantage to them in their work and in broadening their minds. I disagree with those who say that novels should be readily available. It is a matter of individual taste, but when I get a book token, although I have the greatest difficulty deciding how to use it, I never use it to buy a novel. I want something which will last reasonably well and be of a personal interest.

Mr. Lawson: I know that my hon. Friend is a greater lover of Tam O'Shanter. Surely that is the same kind of thing.

Mr. Ross: If I want Tam O'Shanter, I buy an edition of Burns. Very few Tam O'Shanters are produced. I agree that it is a poetic narrative tale and if my hon. Friend will produce for me a novel which becomes as much of a classic, I shall be prepared to buy it.

Mr. Bence: Can we have a few stanzas?

Mr. Ross: There are some very odd stanzas, but
The hour approaches … and I maun get on with my speech.
We want students to resist the influence of these passive pressures, and reasonable expenditure on the libraries of the training colleges offers one of the easiest ways to do it. It would be criminal not to take the chance. It would be criminal, in the new and expanding programme for our training colleges, not properly to furnish them.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland has been pushing at an open door tonight and that he will have a ready response from the Minister which we shall see translated into tangible terms in an increased amount of money and attention devoted to our training college libraries.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I apologise for not having been able to attend the whole debate, and I welcome the opportunity now to make a brief contribution. I congratulate my hon. Friend


the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on raising a subject of such importance for our country's future.
It is fashionable nowadays, perhaps because a General Election is approaching and because teachers form a substantial and influential part of the electorate, to say how important the teaching profession is. Some hon. Members opposite have only just realised it. Nevertheless, it is vital, if we wish ours to be a really dynamic civilisation, that we should, have not only a well paid and numerically sufficient teaching profession but also a highly educated one. We all agree that the standard of the profession must be high. The period of training in the training colleges has recently been extended from two to three years, and we all welcome this. Yet we are sending students to training colleges—when they can get a place—which lack the basic equipment to train them to be efficient teachers.
My hon. Friend referred to the number of books in libraries revealed by the questionnaire in 1961, and he said that there was talk about the need to have 20,000 books in a training college library. My hon. Friend's estimate was 15,000. Even if we could reach 15,000 or 20,000, I would still regard this, compared with what can be found in university libraries and the libraries of some of our older and larger boroughs, as inadequate. Nevertheless, it would be a reasonable aim. How can we expect teachers or training college students to reach the required standard if they have not the books which they need?
A few weeks ago, I spoke to a young student, a girl whom I had taught before I came to the House, about what books she had. She was reading history, among other things, at a training college. I found that she was using a couple of text books and was then going to our own little urban district council library to see whether she could find something else or order other books. She told me that there were not very many books available in the library of the college where she was a student. It is often peculiarly difficult for students in training colleges to get hold of the books they need, because, unlike the universities, many training colleges are not in the large centres of population.
As a former teacher and lecturer, I have always believed that, in order to reach a reasonable standard of education and culture so that they could become efficient teachers, people need books. I remember the very wise words of Sir Lewis Namier, at one time Professor Modern History at Manchester and later, I believe, in charge of research for the official history of Parliament which is now coming out. He told the story of a student who attended all his lectures, took down all the facts religiously in shorthand and had them typed out, learned them all by heart, read nothing else, then answered the questions in the examination papers and failed dismally. Anyone concerned with education, of course, appreciates the fundamental fact that lectures are no substitute for reading.
One of the fundamental difficulties is that there are far too many training colleges with libraries which are neither able to cope with the demands which should be made upon them nor able to give students a true indication of the path to learning. It is a cliché that for human beings education is what is left when one thinks one has forgotten all the facts one has ever learned. The hallmark of an educated man is not his encyclopaedic grasp of a large number of facts but his knowledge of where to find the information which he requires. This technique is developed only by a period in a scholastic and academic atmosphere where one is in constant contact with books.
I mentioned earlier the location of many training colleges in England, and I suppose also in Scotland, as being not in the large centres of population as are our universities. We have a university at Manchester where there is also a library. In addition there is the old borough library formed in the 1830s and the magnificent John Rylands Library which contains a wonderful collection. Apart front the university library at Liverpool, there is a good civic library, as Liverpool was one of the first towns to develop a civic library. There is a very good library in Sheffield, with one of the finest collections of local records in the country.
Where training colleges are in the large centres of population, even though there may not be an adequate college


library, the students can use the civic library in the evenings and at week-ends. I worked for a long time in the Central Library in Sheffield, where one could see students from training colleges doing their work and studying. But in respect of the many training colleges which are situated in the country, often in old stately homes, the situation is different. Often the colleges are a lengthy bus ride from any large centre and the bus service is inadequate. The students are part of a community which should be a little community of would-be scholars because in many ways the ideal student conforms with the old description of a seeker after knowledge, although many people do not attain that standard. They are cloistered in communities in the middle of the countryside, and in the case of some women's training colleges "cloistered" is the right word to use. The facilities available for reading which should form the most important part of their community life are inadequate.
The universities are more fortunate. The old European universities have developed from the Middle Ages and have magnificent libraries. The new universities are generally situated in large industrial towns. Our aim should be to ensure that teacher training colleges—I do not like the term "training colleges" because they are the same as universities—should have the same facilities. I am perturbed by the number of students at training colleges who have come from the newer grammar schools and often from homes where reading is not an integral part of their home life. They are not used to books. Many of the newer grammar schools do not have libraries. They have rooms which they call libraries, with very few books, and their book allowances are generally inadequate. With the best will in the world, the teachers at such grammar schools cannot inculcate the use and regard for books which one would like to see.
Therefore, people go into the teaching profession having moved from homes in which often little reading is done. They go into the newer grammar schools, which have no libraries worth mentioning. Education merely by textbook is one of the failings of the system of examination at "O" level of the G.C.E.

Far too much work is done simply by textbook. The students move into grammar schools, where the books are inadequate or out of date, and they are lucky to get an Encyclopœdia Britannica which is not three or four editions old. At training college, there is the same kind of situation and after three years there they go out to teach.
If there is one thing for which teachers have responsibility, it is to introduce and to give their pupils regard for and love of the use of books. One cannot expect to reach the ideal standards unless the students going through the colleges have the facilities which they should have. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, it seems that far too many training colleges do not have those facilities, and I hope that this debate will serve a useful purpose by spotlighting that glaring deficiency in the educational system.

9.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) for initiating this debate. I imagine that he will have been as pleasantly surprised as I was to discover that what was intended to be a quiet half-hour's Adjournment debate on libraries in the teacher training colleges of England and Wales should have spilt out into the great multi-racial affair to which we have been treated tonight.
The debate has at times ranged widely. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) found a moment or two in which to deplore that so many people today were victims of the "goggle box". Whatever criticism is made of Scottish Members who sit on the benches opposite, I have never heard it argued that they run away to watch television in the evenings when they might be here debating.
I sincerely welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject, because a major effort has been made in recent years. My right hon. Friend, like many hon. Members who have spoken tonight, attaches the highest importance to libraries as being at the heart of training college work, and substantial resources are going into their development and improvement. During the last two years particularly, much attention has been


devoted to these libraries and the bodies maintaining the colleges have been encouraged to improve library book stocks, staffing and accommodation.
I have been impressed, as any who visit the new and remodelled teacher training colleges must be, by the fact that often the finest feature of these new buildings is the library. That is as it should be, because the library must fulfil a key rôle in a teacher training college, not only because of its value as a means of personal study, but as an essential instrument for the professional training of the students by the teachers. A number of hon. Members have made this point during the debate.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has, I know, seen a copy of the Report prepared by a group of Her Majesty's inspectors in 1961 on this subject and he referred to it during his speech. The Report pointed in another passage to the way in which the schools over recent years have been turning towards, as the Report puts it, ways of teaching which depend upon the individual's use of a library.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) made this point and emphasised the importance of this trend. On an entirely informal, unannounced visit to a primary school the other day, it was surprising to me to find children of seven and eight years of age making use in some free minutes of the small school library, quite unsupervised. This is a trend of importance in the schools. In addition to the importance of a library to any institution of higher education, there is in the case of the teacher training colleges this important professional reason for students to have good library facilities and to appreciate their worth.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland put to me a number of detailed questions. He was concerned with clerical assistance, as have been a number of hon. Members who have spoken. In answers given to Questions earlier this year, my right hon. Friend was able to give the hon. Member some information. There is no additional information that I can give on the local education authority colleges. As for the voluntary training colleges, I would refer hon.

Members who have raised the question to the list which was given in an Answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland on 29th May.
While I can give no further statistics today, my right hon. Friend has made it clear in tie House that colleges could make provision for more clerical staff without putting specific proposals to the Ministry. He has stressed that in so far as this is a matter for him he is anxious to see proper clerical assistance provided whenever it is needed.
In paragraph 40 of the 1961 Report, to which I have already referred, the authors have this to say on the subject of clerical work:
There is necessarily a good deal of clerical work in a library. There are book orders to be compiled and invoices checked.… We believe that a librarian will not have the time to develop and make effective the kind of library that we have in mind unless he is relieved of this clerical work; nor is such work a proper use of the time of a qualified lecturer or librarian. The appointment of a clerical assistant to the library, even if only part-time, is preferable in our view to an arrangement by which typing and other work for the library is done in the college office.
I agree with those sentiments.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland directed considerable attention to the number of books which we may rightly expect to find in the libraries of our teacher training colleges. The Library Association produced not long ago a memorandum in conjunction with the Association of Teachers in Colleges and Departments of Education. That memorandum recommended that 20,000 volumes should be regarded as a minimum number. The 1961 Report does not include a global figure of this kind and hon. Members will appreciate that the requirements in different colleges must vary considerably. Yet if one studies paragraph 24 of the Report, about the size of the component elements of a book stock, it will be seen that the recommendation in the 1961 Report broadly tallies with—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

Mr. Chataway: We need not argue between the two sets of recommendations because they are entirely compatible, and if the Libraries Association has suggested that 20,000 is a suitable total for the library of a teacher training college, that as a broad estimate is not a figure with which I would quarrel because it corresponds very closely to the arithmetic in the 1961 H.M.I. Report. It is towards this sort of total that teacher training colleges are working.
The second point I wish to make on the subject of building up and maintaining book stocks is this. The H.M.I. Report recommended two kinds of grant—a non-recurring grant spread over a period up to 10 years to enable each college to obtain the minimum book stock appropriate to its needs, and an annual grant to maintain its collection in working order.
No cost figure was given for the nonrecurring grant, but for the annual grant the Report said that in terms of 1960 prices no college ought to spend less than £500 per annum on library books and that a college of about 400 students should receive a grant of £800 in addition to the grant of £100 for periodicals. One or two hon. Members have laid stress on the importance of providing journals and periodicals in these libraries and they will be glad to see that the advice tendered includes a reference to periodicals.
As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has suggested, there is a difference here between the advice that has been tendered to the teacher training colleges in the 1961 Report and the advice in the Libraries Association memorandum. The memorandum recommended in terms of January, 1961, prices an annual book fund based on £4 per student and £10 per member of staff. That works out at £4·9 per student and is a figure higher than the recommendation contained in the H.M.I. Report.
The fact that the latter figure is lower results largely from the view that books are likely to have a longer useful life and be less likely to get lost or damaged in a college library serving a closed and select community than in most other kinds of library. At the same time, the H.M.I. Report says that experience may show that a larger figure for the annual

grant may be required, and certainly over the build-up that is taking place during this decade we shall watch that figure and review it as necessary.
The local education authority colleges and voluntary colleges are financed quite differently. The local education authorities maintain their colleges, their expenditure being pooled among all authorities, whereas the Ministry pays direct the whole of the maintenance of the voluntary colleges. We could, therefore, commend to authorities only the recommendations of the Report about non-recurring and annual recurring grants.
We can only check how much they have spent on libraries in the normal course of events when we receive their accounts, which may be up to one year after the end of each financial year. But I can say that the voluntary colleges were specifically asked for their proposals for implementing the recommendations, and in some instances where it seemed to us that the proposals might be too modest, steps were taken to indicate that we should be prepared to accept something more if the college saw fit to propose it.
The only figures that I can give to the House tonight to show the effect of the Report are these. Expenditure on books at local education authority general colleges increased from £81,000 in 1961–62 to an estimated £125,000 in 1962–63 and at the voluntary colleges from £53,000 to an estimataed £86,000. It will be seen that in this year there has been a very substantial increase in expenditure, and that is a trend that we must expect to continue. Not only is the population of our teacher training colleges expanding very rapidly in England and Wales, but the demands placed upon the libraries of the teacher training colleges by the three year course may well be commensurately greater.
Hon. Members, in particular the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, have asked for more data about the libraries in the teacher training colleges. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland drew a number of blanks in his last batch of Questions to my right hon. Friend. He will, I think, appreciate that the Ministry must strike a balance about the amount of information that we can require, particularly from local education authority colleges with whom we have no direct financial link, but it is sensible, of course,


from time to time to take stock, and my right hon. Friend has issued instructions that we should ask for a special return from local education authorities maintaining colleges to obtain information about the employment of tutor librarians and professionally qualified librarians. We were able to give information early last year on this subject.
I entirely agree with what has been said by hon. Members this evening as to the importance of ensuring that there is a qualified librarian, a fully professional librarian or a tutor librarian in charge of the libraries at the teacher training colleges. We shall, therefore, be seeking further information from the colleges as to developments in this respect.
The hon. Member has put to me some other demands for information which I will certainly consider. He has suggested that we might have published in the statistics of education further details so that we may judge how this build-up of the libraries in the teacher training colleges is going. This is certainly a suggestion to which we will give thought. When further information is available about the employment of librarians in the training colleges, I will ensure that he has it.
The only other broad topic raised tonight that was directly relevant to the libraries in these colleges, was that of space. A number of hon. Members urged that libraries should be pleasant places, that they should be congenial, and that students should be attracted into them. The 1961 Report recommended as a minimum that there should be seating accommodation for one-fifth of the student body, with 32 sq. ft. of space per seat—

that is, including tables and bookcases. The Library Association memorandum had some more generous recommendations, though these were not set as a minimum. It recommended seating accommodation for one-quarter of the staff and students, with 40 sq. ft. of space per seat.
In all colleges that have expanded, or are in course of expansion, we have provided far either one-fifth of the number of students at 40 sq. ft. per seat, or one-quarter of the number at 32 sq. ft. In addition, nearly all have English or other lecture rooms associated with them—usually en suite, so to speak. Large study-bedrooms in which a high proportion of resident students do their reading are also provided, and a special study area is usually provided for day students. It will therefore be seen that substantial efforts are being made to improve the amenities in training college libraries.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland would find that he was pressing at an open door, and I can assure him that that is the case. In recent years, considerable attention has been devoted by the Ministry of Education to this topic. We believe that the libraries must be a key feature of the expanding teacher training colleges, and where there are new needs or new deficiencies I can assure the House that applicants will find in my right hon. Friend a sympathetic and forthcoming attitude.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Ten o'clock.